Archive for the ‘Disaster Relief’ Category

The Iowa Floods, One Year Later

Tuesday, June 30th, 2009
Not Yet Back to Normal

Not Yet Back to Normal

The Associated Press reports that “one year after Iowa floods, many still wait for help”. By my calculations, they have another five years to go and the help will be far less than they had anticipated. The AP reports of the inadequacies of FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) programs and that long-term assistance has been slow to materialize. HUD (Housing and Urban Development) Secretary Shaun Donovan, visited Cedar Rapids, Iowa to announce new disaster relief grants at which time he acknowledged that there is a problem with the long gap between immediate relief and long-term rebuilding assistance. He attributed this, in part, to the fact that for every single disaster Congress has created a new law and a new allocation system that delays agency response. I am impressed by his candor. Secretary Donovan’s remarks provide insight as to why you cannot rely on government assistance if you want to keep your small business running.

One of the most heartbreaking, but not surprising, cases cited in the AP report was that of a family that is paying its mortgage on a home too damaged to inhabit while paying rent for their immediate living needs. As bad as that is, if you own a small business, you get the double-payment twice, for your home and your office. Homeowner’s and tenant’s insurance should cover the cost of your housing when a disaster displaces you. In my case, when I was evacuated from my home after 9-11, my homeowner’s insurance was responsible for the costs incurred should I have chosen to stay in a hotel. It sounds like this family did not have adequate insurance. At a time when financial regulatory reform is focused on consumer protection, we should place equal emphasis, if not more, on financial literacy. And we should give generously to private disaster relief charities, whose reserves have been exhausted in the recession. I was very happy to see American Airlines call attention to this need in the current edition of its inflight magazine.

A Lesson From Detroit

Monday, June 8th, 2009
Small Business on the Menu

Small Business on the Menu

In Prepare for the Worst, Plan for the Best: Disaster Preparedness and Recovery for Small Businesses (Wiley, second edition, 2008), in the section titled “Sometimes Aid Can Be Harmful”, I wrote “Lesson 1: Time is your most precious asset and it is better spent on growing revenues and pursuing business opportunities than trying to qualify for many aid programs. These programs have onerous documentation requirements, each one is different and they generally yield a poor return on the time invested.” I thought of this sentiment when I read the leader in this week’s Economist which commented that “if Detroit had spent less time lobbying for government protection and more on improving its products, it might have fared better.” The trap is a psychological one: everyone wants to feel that they got something for nothing and having paid taxes, you want to recoup some of that payment. But it is not a wise investment of your time and an investment in this effort probably signals your own assessment of your business prospects. In a recent roundtable discussion of small business issues on the “Money for Breakfast” program of Fox Business News, I disclosed that I had tracked the hours I put into disaster relief programs post-9/11. On a pre-tax, pre-expense basis, I recovered $2.10 per hour of time invested, less than minimum wage. Other small business owners fared even worse. Government program requirements are so convoluted that you often need expert tax, accounting and legal advice to prepare the program applications. Obviously, the expense incurred with such service providers reduces your net proceeds. The Economist lead was titled “Detroitosaurus Wrecks”; unless you see your business going the way of the dinosaurs, invest your time in growing revenues and market share, not dealing with government programs.

Texas Experiences the Worst Drought in Its History

Thursday, March 26th, 2009
Post-Katrina, Less Bureaucratic Pencil-Pushing

Post-Katrina, Less Bureaucratic Pencil-Pushing

According to a statement issued by the Office of the Governor of Texas, Governor Rick Perry “requested that the U.S. Department of Agriculture provide disaster relief assistance for Texas farms and ranches that have suffered economic and physical losses as a result of severe drought conditions. If Perry’s statewide request is approved, qualified farm operators in all Texas counties will be eligible for low-interest emergency loans from the USDA. The agency also offers additional programs, such as technical assistance, to eligible farmers.” This is most severe drought on record, affecting Texas Hill Country in the South-Central part of the State from San Antonio and Austin; 60% of the beef cows in Texas are in the counties with conditions defined as “severe to exceptional drought”. This only adds to the pain of businesses that have already suffered losses from the economic recession. Texas is the country’s largest cattle-producing state and has already lost close to $1 billion because of the continuing drought.

According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, extreme drought conditions also exist across other areas of Texas and much of the southwestern United States, threatening water supplies and farmers in rapidly-growing urban areas. In California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a statewide drought emergency, urging local communities to impose conservation measures to reduce water consumption by 20 percent.

For small-scale farmers, the government assistance programs can be confusing. The Small Business Administration (“SBA”) does not underwrite agricultural loans. For the purposes of SBA’s 7(a) program, a small farm may be considered a small business, but for the purpose of the Economic Injury Disaster Loan, it is not. After Hurricane Katrina, the U.S. Department of Agriculture had to re-write its rules so that it could respond to the needs of small-scale farmers, particularly in the aftermath of a major disaster. It would certainly make government programs more efficient and transparent if the agencies could develop uniform applications.

If You Are Gasping for Air, This May Not Help

Monday, March 23rd, 2009
Gasping for Air

Gasping for Air

The Small Business Administration continues to work on guidelines for its forthcoming emergency credit facility, tentatively named “America’s Recovery Capital (ARC) Loan Program”.  The legislation enabling this program requires the SBA to create a new “business stabilization” program to back loans of up to $35,000 to small businesses “experiencing immediate financial hardship”. The proceeds of these loans are to make up to six months of interest and principal payments on a “qualifying small business loans”. This program was conceived as a stopgap measure to assist small businesses struggling to service existing debt. Congress allocated $255 million in the stimulus to fund the ARC program, paying for the program’s loan guarantees and interest subsidies, thereby levering up the amount available to lend. As the SBA is still developing the ARC loan guidelines, it does not yet know when the funds will be available.  While this may appear to be welcome news to small businesses that have thus far not benefited from the government bailouts, hold your applause. There are several issues to consider:

  • Defining “viable businesses” to mitigate moral hazard risk. For the first time in its history, the SBA will offer issuing banks a 100% guarantee on ARC loans that they extend to small business owners. If the business owner defaults, the SBA will repay the bank for the full value of the loan. The SBA will also fully subsidize the interest on the loans, making them effectively free of cost to the small business borrower. No payments on the loans will be due for a year and businesses will have up to five years to repay the loans. However, the full guarantee of the taxpayer to the SBA program raises the moral hazard risk: the risk that banks will lend to borrowers that are not creditworthy because the government will pay the loan losses. This is particularly troubling, as the SBA has already reported soaring default rates on its traditional loan programs. To mitigate this risk, the SBA stipulates that ARC loans are to be extended only to “viable” small businesses, which it defines as those that have “demonstrated an earnings history and a proven record for success that may just need a little extra help to get through a short-term downturn”. (Shouldn’t all loans be limited to “viable” businesses? And how did the SBA determine that the current economic downturn will exist only for the “short-term”?)

We dealt with this issue in the aftermath of 9-11 as disaster aid programs were defined as corporate welfare for the Fortune 500 and loans (with personal guarantees) for the small businesses. However, in order to qualify for the subsidized loans, you had to prove that yours was a “viable” small business. My business, which was newly incorporated and had a short history prior to 9-11-01, did not qualify, nor did other start-ups. (Although eight years later, we are still in business, which is not true for certain of the financial services corporations in the Fortune 500 that received 9/11 handouts.) In other words, in order to qualify for the loan, you had to prove that you didn’t need it.

  • Limited qualifications for the use of the loan proceeds. You won’t be able to use the new ARC loans to cover payments on existing SBA-guaranteed debt. The stimulus bill, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, contains a provision written into the bill by Congress that explicitly prevents the use of ARC loans to pay down existing SBA debt incurred before the bill’s passage. CNN quoted a staffer with the House Small Business Committee who explained that the provision was mandated by the Congressional Budget Office to comply with pay-as-you-go restrictions against increasing the federal deficit through new direct-spending legislation. He added “it is one of the most complicated things I’ve heard in a long time”. Businesses with existing SBA-loans can still apply for the new ARC loans, but they cannot use the latter to pay down the former.
  • Rewarding debtors. The House Committee staffer added, “private loans made for any legitimate business purpose — including credit card debts, bank loans and real-estate loans — would be eligible for the program”.  So if you managed your small business prudently and avoided taking on debt of any kind, this program is of no help to you.  If you did take on debt, you should probably be negotiating new terms and forbearance with your creditors, even if you think you won’t need it. Take the breathing room while you can.

And of course, like all government programs, this one is complicated. I would prefer to invest my time in growing my revenues than attempting to decipher the requirements of another government program.

Plus Ça Change

Saturday, March 21st, 2009
The Best Plans

The Best Plans

I had a rather unusual experience with the medical examination required for me to travel for the United Nations Capital Development Fund. On behalf of my first business, Childs Capital LLC, I had accepted an assignment to serve as the Senior Policy Advisor to the United Nations Advisors Group on Inclusive Financial Sectors. This was a follow-on initiative to the UN’s International Year of Microcredit with the goal of expanding access to finance for the poorest people in the developing world. I traveled a great deal for the UN on this assignment, working on projects in Kenya, India and elsewhere. The UN requires medical clearance prior to beginning the contract, including an echocardiogram, which I had performed at the New York Downtown Hospital. The doctor expressed concern about the abnormal results and wondered if I was stressed about anything. Indeed, I was! Next door to the hospital was a construction site with dynamite chargers going off every 3.5 seconds. (I know; I was counting while lying on the examining table with the electrodes attached to my chest.)

After 9-11, billions of dollars in stimulus aid went to subsidize construction projects in Lower Manhattan, apparently in the belief that “if you build it, they will come”. The site adjacent to New York’s Downtown Hospital was to become the Beekman Tower, a Frank Gehry-designed luxury rental building in Lower Manhattan with about 900 apartments.  This was part of a grand plan to make the financial district a “24-hour community”. I could never understand why anyone would want to live in this area. Even now, after all of the billions of dollars that went into these schemes, it is very difficult to buy a newspaper on a Sunday morning in that neighborhood or to find a restaurant that keeps its kitchen open past nine in the evening. It seemed to me the height of arrogance that one would think that central planning would work here where it has failed everywhere else. I was never convinced that policymakers in New York or Washington were any smarter than their counterparts in Moscow, whose economic plans have long since been discredited.

Construction on the foundation of the Beekman Tower began in 2006. Now, in 2009, construction is not finished and the real estate developer has cut this tower from 76 stories to 38, one-half of the height originally planned for this luxury rental building. “Given the current economy, we are conducting a study to assess costs, risks and overall timing,” announced the real estate developer in a written statement. “Work is continuing on the building including on the school and we should have some conclusive answers shortly.” The developer added that work will continue on the lower stories, but added that no additional floors will be added pending an evaluation of costs. Just last year, Forest City Ratner, the real estate developer, obtained $680 million in financing for this project, which was the largest construction loan in its history. It was seen as one of the few projects in New York City that was bucking the overall real estate meltdown as construction continued.

Now, of course, the world has changed. The financial system of the U.S. is effectively insolvent. Certain of the largest employers in the financial district, such as Merrill Lynch, no longer exist. Others, such as AIG, are struggling. Lower Manhattan faces an economic crisis more severe than that caused by the events of 9-11. The irony is that resilient small businesses in the financial district, including my own, were displaced for these “grand scheme” projects that were never really viable in the first place. So now we will create jobs, expand the tax base and support local charities in communities other than Lower Manhattan, leaving behind these half-completed construction projects. The Beekman Tower is not the only Lower Manhattan construction project that has run into trouble. AIG is attempting to arrange a sale-leaseback of two of its Lower Manhattan office buildings, an arrangement that is becoming increasingly popular in a soft real estate market. Both the New York Times Corp. and Citigroup have arranged sale-leaseback transactions for certain of their properties. And the developer of the properties at the World Trade Center site, Larry Silverstein, is reported to be seeking a bailout from the New York Port Authority, which has cash flow problems of its own.

Small businesses were displaced to make way for the New York Times Corp. to build its spectacular new headquarters, in an abuse of eminent domain seizures following the Supreme Court’s landmark Kelo decision. I wonder how different things would be in Lower Manhattan if market mechanisms had been allowed to work through the post-9/11 recovery, if public subsidies to large corporations had not been granted and if the small businesses, which continue to create jobs, would have been left to do our work in peace. These lessons appear to be lost on our policymakers in Washington as they seek to defend the latest outrage in corporate welfare and federal bailouts.

P.S. Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker gave an insightful interview in which he argued that many of the government’s stimulus programs, to mitigate the impact of disaster, are counterproductive.

The Clock is Ticking

Friday, February 27th, 2009
No time like the present

No time like the present

USA Today reported this month that close to $4.0 billion in federal government rebuilding aid committed in response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita has not been spent more than three years after the disaster. The result is that thousands of projects across the Gulf Coast remain incomplete. The aid, part of a massive recovery effort funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, was intended to repair or replace public works destroyed by the hurricanes. Congress has called FEMA to account for the unspent funds, but the lesson bears repeating: don’t depend on the government for disaster aid. You will be disappointed. Focus your efforts on what is within the scope of your control, such as savings and insurance.

The Clock is Ticking

Monday, February 9th, 2009
Time is running out

Time is Running Out

As is sadly the case with longer-term, chronic disaster relief needs, out of sight is often out of mind. According to the Houston Chronicle, donations supporting recovery efforts in the Texas Gulf Coast in the aftermath of Hurricane Ike are dwindling. The United Way of Greater Houston had raised close to $6 million for its hurricane efforts. It has stopped raising funds and is currently focused on longer-term human service needs.  The Gulf Coast Ike Fund expects that by March it will have distributed all of the close to $12 million it has raised for emergency and short-term needs and will close its doors. The Bush-Clinton Coastal Recovery Fund is the only remaining entity still actively raising funds; however, its aid assistance focuses on rebuilding public infrastructure, not on the needs of families and small businesses. Charitable giving to support disaster relief efforts for Hurricane Ike was hindered by the timing of the financial crisis, with Lehman Brothers filing for bankruptcy two days after Ike struck the Gulf Coast. With the financial markets in crisis, charitable giving across all sectors has slowed, although the needs remain acute.

To help address these needs, I will be partnering with chapters of the American Red Cross to speak at events at Borders Bookstores in their local communities, with 10% of all sales during those time periods to be donated to the Red Cross. These events will take place in March, National Red Cross Month. As the dates are confirmed, I will post them on this site.

Disaster Loans for Economic Catastrophes?

Monday, October 13th, 2008

Senator John Kerry, Chairman of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee of the U.S. Senate, recently introduced legislation that would treat the current credit crisis as a federal disaster. If passed, this legislation would enable the Small Business Administration to guarantee private low-interest loans to small businesses, along the lines of what is currently done with the SBA disaster loan program. Senator Kerry compared the recent events around the credit crisis to the extension of aid following the September 11th terrorist attacks which, he noted, put $2 billion into local economies. I am extremely skeptical of this proposal; it appears to me to be a sop to dilute criticism of a bail-out of Wall Street by appearing to redistribute aid to other constituents.

Recall exactly what did happen as a consequence of the 9-11 SBA programs: a 2005 Senate review found that many of the loans went to small businesses that did not appear to be harmed by the terrorist attacks. Only 15% of the cases reviewed by the Senator Kerry’s committee showed evidence of disaster-related losses; the remainder had insufficient or questionable documentation. The more egregious cases of small businesses receiving 9-11 disaster loan aid included the now-infamous doughnut franchise in Oregon, a Nevada tanning salon, a liquor store in Georgia and a golf course in Texas. I also note that this “aid” is provided on very different terms to small businesses than the disaster bail-outs routinely extended to large corporations: small business owners are personally liable for their liabilities and must provide personal guarantees. It appears to me as though the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee failed to learn the lessons of 9-11 and of other failed disaster relief programs.

Get Some Breathing Room

Thursday, October 2nd, 2008

With all of the reports in the news about the difficulties small businesses face in accessing credit, the bigger story is overlooked. Many small businesses contract with the federal government for net payment terms of 30 days on submission of an approved invoice. The federal government is stretching its payments out to 140 – 150 days, in effect, extracting interest-free financing from small business suppliers. Even worse, if the small business is the prime contractor, it must pay its sub-contractors even before it receives payment from the federal government. The Fortune-500 are also stretching out payments, although not to that extreme. Being an unwilling creditor is a more serious problem than being unable to access credit.

And with that happy thought, I would like to suggest that residents in the Houston-Galveston area in the wake of Ike begin to negotiate longer payment terms, reductions in interest rates or any other forbearance that they can with their creditors. In disaster recovery mode, everything takes longer than you think it will. Try to negotiate some breathing room for yourself while the powerful images of the disaster give you some negotiating leverage or sympathy. It is better to negotiate early in the process then when your accounts go into arrears and blemishes start to appear on your credit report. And it will reduce your stress level.

Residents Affected by Hurricanes Gustav and Ike to Benefit from FEMA Housing Assistance

Wednesday, October 1st, 2008
FEMA and HUD promise housing assistance

FEMA and HUD promise housing assistance

The Department of Housing and Urban Development has joined with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to announce a housing assistance program for residents affected by Hurricanes Gustav and Ike. For more information about this program, click here to see the FEMA press release. The program appears to have much in common with FEMA’s Mortgage and Rental Assistance Program that was in effect during the 9/11 disaster, although it differs in some key respects to the assistance offered in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Here are two tips from the experience of 9/11:

1. As I recommended in Prepare for the Worst, Plan for the Best: Disaster Preparedness and Recovery for Small Businesses (Wiley, second edition, 2008), always use a Certificate of Mailing for any correspondence with your insurance company or any relief agency. This is different from sending a letter via registered or certified mail in which the recipient must sign to acknowledge receipt of the letter or package. With a Certificate of Mailing, the recipient’s signature is unnecessary; it is the post office that provides certification of the date and time of the mailing. Why is this distinction important? Consider what happened in the aftermath of 9/11 to Lower Manhattan residents who were directed to mail their applications for the FEMA Mortgage and Rental Assistance Program to a designated post office box address for processing. Applications were not accepted through other channels. Weeks and months passed and residents wondered what had happened with their applications. As it turns out, FEMA had not paid the rent on its post office box. If the post office would have returned the undeliverable applications to the senders, the problem could have been detected earlier. But one error compounded another and the post office staff simply piled up the undeliverable applications in a back room. The Certificate of Mailing would have proved that the applicants met their deadlines irrespective of the problems on the recipient’s end, that is one of the reasons that I recommend its use. By the way, the book incorrectly states that the cost of the Certificate of Mailing is $0.60. It was $0.60 at the time I submitted the manuscript for the book, but it has since risen to $1.10, which is still a good value.

2. The information that FEMA and HUD have released indicates that benefits will be paid three months at a time. If they will process the benefits for this program as they did for the Mortgage and Rental Assistance Program, they will electronically deposit the funds in the recipient’s bank account. Given the economic difficulties and credit pressure, it is very likely that there are applicants in the Gulf Coast who may have judgments against them. In such a case, it would be better to set up a separate account for receipt of the electronic funds from which the rent or mortgage expense could be paid. An attorney with the 9/11 Project of the New York Legal Aid Society had informed me of an instance in which one of her clients had commingled his FEMA housing assistance money with other funds in his account and the FEMA money was garnished by a creditor. If you may be facing this risk, it is better not to take a chance. Use a separate account.