Monday's financial markets perpetuate uncertainty in the markets when there should be none. This is what we know for certain: banks get into trouble when they loan money to people who can't pay it back; the U.S. Federal Reserve likes throwing gas on fires.
This is quite different than some of the intervention that Greenspan orchestrated, though it was inflationary. Greenspan loosened too much on the way to 2000 to be sure that there was enough liquidity to prevent Y2K problems. He then pulled back too much and caused a post-2000 collapse. After 9/11, the injected liquidity allowed markets to stabilize after markets were closed for a week and world political situations were unstable.
This time around, the Fed is forgetting its role in creating a dollar that has the confidence of the markets and citizens. One pundit repeated the old line that holds quite true: capitalism without losses is like religion without sin. Instead of letting these poorly run businesses to die, as they should, and to inspire discipline in the lending and borrowing of money, where the borrower has to prove the ability to play to the loaner, and the loaner has to prove to the borrower that the deal is reasonable, we now have Ivy League MBA finance majors, skilled in Microsoft Excel, concocting theoretical risk management methods that prove to be just houses of cards built on houses of cards built on yet more houses of cards.
Declining oil and commodity prices should not be welcomed as one thinks. They are signs of deepening economic weakness, not a return to price sanity. Prices are thermometers, they are not ends in themselves. The money that went to commodities is now going elsewhere; most are still higher than last year, and higher prices since May are still working their way through production and inventory chains. The inflation data that comes out in a few months may look reasonable but they will be built on debris and carnage.
Monday's industrial production and capacity data prove again that weakening the dollar to increase exports just creates serious problems because they are forced measures, not the natural actions of buyers and sellers.
My economic outlook, rather than one of muddling along at around 2% real GDP is becoming more pessimistic because of these price declines. Government actions will just prolong the problem and make it harder for resources to be reallocated. Muddling may be considered normal for the next five years.
In the end, it's not the bankers and financiers that determine economic vitality. Credit is the grease that oils the machine of productivity. But it is still the production of goods and services that create wealth. When someone thins the oil, like the Fed is doing by feeding inflation, that productivity machine works far less efficiently. Be very careful in planning, and be certain that you are looking at real data and not inflation-distorted data. The Fed is the bartender who waters down the drinks as closing time gets nearer; they're starting to water them down from the first drink served. Beware.
The Federal Reserve issued its industrial activity report for printing Monday; capacity utilization was down -7.5%. Gee, what a surprise: that matches the decline in June and July's printing shipments. August's real printing shipments should be close to awful. Can we get out of it? Our entrepreneurial spirits are being tested. Blaming the economy is not the answer and does not face the larger trends at work.
It is challenging, but the economic webinar next Wednesday will be more “interesting” that I would like it to be. I am quite curious about what I will end up saying. Pass the ibuprofen... don't let anyone see the security blanket hiding under my desk.
Discussion
By Erik Nikkanen on Sep 18, 2008
Much of what you have said is very true but it is also quite late to help. I have been reading similar analysis of what has happened and what will happen, years before Greenspan retired. Bernanke is very probably making a lot of mistakes but he also was put into an impossible position by Mr. Greenspan.
The crisis is not something that just developed. It has been building for decades and it has finally run to the point where continually increasing credit can not keep the house of cards standing.
I am not an economist but I knew this mess was coming because I have been following people who understood the problem and have been reporting on it for years. And there is more bad news to come. If one wants to believe the distorted government statistics, then one can believe that the recession will be mild or not even happen. We will have to wait to see what will happen but from what I have been following, it is not going to be good for some time.
By Pat Berger on Sep 19, 2008
A stocks value is only a perception in the investors mind. Rarely are stocks value based on corporate liquidity. This past few months have demonstrated how bad a perception value can swing a stocks value . Being big with a high stock price doesn't mean a thing it just shows that many times the stock isn't worth the paper it is printed on.
When stocks are based on actual liquid assets it has meaningful value.
By Michael Josefowicz on Sep 19, 2008
On the "bright" side..sort of. When the system reorganizes it can be a real opportunity for innovative solutions. Moving forward, I think we are in an environment where all of us, vendors, printers and customers are going to be forced to do more with less. Not because it's a good idea, but because we're all going to have a lot less.
So, new solutions that save time and money might get an audience that was not interested before the reorganization.
From the point of view of sustainability, doing more with less is really at the heart of the matter.
I think it's almost inevitable for the next few years that innovation is going to move from a marketing slogan to the key to surviving the storm.
By Dr Joe Webb on Sep 19, 2008
Thanks all for your comments.
This has been brewing for decades, starting when FDR played with the delinking of the dollar with gold (it could have been any commodity, but that was the traditional one), Nixon's official de-linking of it, and the Humphrey-Hawkins legislation, much of which has expired but is still with us in an active Federal Reserve.
Government data are not distorted except in the short term. They do get it right. They do not paint a rosy picture and haven't for some time. There is no need to lie or distort. One of the biggest problems with financial reporting is the lack of reporting about the effects of inflation in the most basic of data. For example, the monthly retail sales number, the monthly factory orders, etc., are not adjusted for it. Neither are monthly data on personal income. One can do so easily. In some reports, as I use this phrase often, "it's in paragraph 3 of the press release" which the business media never seem to report.
Government data don't lie: the printing industry has gone through 5 negative quarters not long after it went through 15 negative quarters. Our employment has gone from nearly 830,000 in 1998 to 598,000 last month.
For a perspective on economic data, I cannot more strongly recommend "Econospinning" by Gene Epstein. For basic economics, "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell, and for a more detailed look at the Austrian School, "Economics for Real People" by Gene Callahan.
As far as stock prices, stocks have never been worth the paper they are printed on. Stocks are always valued on their perceived future earnings, and that is all. That perception is always subject to things that are not necessarily objective. In the case of the current situation, so many good performing companies had to be dumped to cover other problem areas that this is a marvelous time to buy good companies, and this is a lesson in the value of diversification and much disparaged "old style" investing practices such as dollar-cost-averaging. Inflation is the worst enemy of investing, followed by taxes, and then by stupidity. The first two are certain, the latter represents great opportunities.
Speaking of stocks, the last four quarters of profits for Adobe are greater than the last four quarters of profits for the U.S. Commercial Printing Industry. Adobe's bottom line is 24% of sales; Microsoft's is about 30%. Where's the outcry against "Big Software" and hauling all "Big Software" executives before some silly Congressional committee?
People do not start companies to operate them only in the best of economic times. We operate them all of the time and navigate what we can't control and be proactive where we must.
Whether or not the economy is in recession or not matters little. In a strong economy, there is more money available to be invested in the technologies that avoid print. In a weak economy, there is strong incentive to use the technologies already invested in that avoid print.
As far as doing more with less, that is always a short-term reality, but never deals with the issues, as it only tweaks current processes. I believe many print businesses are doing just that and "waiting out" bad economic times when that is the wrong prescription in a new media environment. Even when times were good or just moderately good, print volume was still declining. Yet, the perception that print is economic activity based ignores the revolution around us.
As I remind people in various audiences: I write about the printing industry... on the Internet.
By Michael Josefowicz on Sep 19, 2008
Points well taken. It is pretty well established that print overall is a shrinking market. People can dispute it. But there it is.
The problem then becomes, how do you make money in a shrinking market?
My take is that there are two possible approaches,if you have strong relationships in those shrinking markets - especially advertising and publishing or newspaper - the only choice is to be the most efficient low cost producer and focus on innovation as a non commodity value add. Innovation in this context means to me, using what is easy for you and hard for your customer. I think it implies new product development.
If you are lucky enough to not be deeply entangled in those industries, the best course is similar to the above with a difference.
Leave advertising and legacy publishing and financial companies alone for a while and find a potentially growing market.
My take is that education is in for a wave of creative destruction. Lots of money going to come in from both local and federal sources.
The other opportunity is in health. Not on the advertising side, but in understanding how print coupled with the internet can make delivery of health better, faster and cheaper.
Another opportunity is local businesses or small regional chains. Lots of solutions looking for problems there. Plus it gives a printer a sustainable advantage by virtue of location.
By Erik Nikkanen on Sep 21, 2008
Irrespective of a bad economy, a shrinking market does require innovation for specific firms to survive and prosper. It is easy to say that innovation is required for all parties in the printing industry but it is much harder to realize actual innovation in an industry that does not have the DNA to innovate. It is not a part of the culture. It is not a part of the natural inclination of the people in the industry to innovate.
People might easily argue with this comment but I will give my observations on why I feel this is true.
The printing industry is an industry that does not understand its own processes and can not explain it in a way that leads to predictable improvements in performance or in discussions that are based on rational thought.
Press manufacturers do not understand what happens in the press and this has resulted in press development that has not shown fundamental changes.
Printers don't understand the steps required to improve press performance as a manufacturing process and therefore count on suppliers for knowledge.
Graphic arts educational and trade institutions promote themselves as being scientifically oriented but in fact are only technologists which have little interest in fundamental questions that truly lead to the kind of knowledge that can make innovation possible.
I am a mechanical engineer and have looked at the density control problem since 1984. Basically the density control problem is understandable and solvable at relatively low cost. In my experience of over 12 years, trying to interest press manufacturers, printers, educators, etc. in understanding the rules that govern the process, I have been surprised to find an almost universal indifference to understanding fundamental issues. Such curiosity in not in your DNA.
The very few people I did encounter that could and were interested in discussing these issues, I can count on the fingers of one hand. Most of those people eventually left the industry probably because the industry did not welcome them because the asked too many questions. Just my guess.
The industry has a lot of facts about its process but has a very difficult time relating facts together that result in new understanding. Instead it perpetuates faulty knowledge based on trade thinking.
At this time, innovation is extremely critical. In talks with press manufacturers, I didn't see any spark of interest to develop new technology that not only can give them a competitive advantage but also change the fundamental direction of printing. In talks with printers I didn't see any spark of interest to develop internal advantages over their competition. In talks with Graphic arts institutions I saw no spark of interest to advance knowledge. And with educators I saw no interest for them to keep their students informed of the fundamental knowledge required for them to make informed decisions in the future. What I did see was a consistent argument to stay ignorant of reality.
The printing industry is unique is some ways. There is the great potential for leveraging knowledge in process improvement. Since the problem of density consistency and predictability is in all offset presses, understanding the fundamental issues that lead to low cost solutions has a very great amount of leverage for a printer to be more competitive if they develop those capabilities internally. They are blind to this potential.
The same goes for press manufacturers.
My view is that the printing industry is stuck and it will be hard for individual companies to innovate there way out of a downward spiral. Survival will be done by attrition as opposed to innovation.
By Dr Joe Webb on Sep 21, 2008
Improving the offset print process will not result in a competitive answer to "do not print", environmental constraints and perceptions about paper, the Internet, new media, wi-fi/broadband/?? communications technologies, new video display technologies like e-paper, postal regulations that disadvantage print, the rich media experience, etc. Almost every electronic competitor to print has lower resolution and expectations for quality than print already provides. The issue is not how print is accomplished, but what print does from a communications effectiveness compared to other communications alternatives. I am reminded of the story of the great sail ships... when the steamships arrived, the sailing ship builders made ships with taller masts with bigger sails. Improving densities does not give us an answer when the competitors are Adobe (electronic media), Google (search), and XML (support of multiple viewing technologies with a common language).
By Erik Nikkanen on Sep 21, 2008
Then don't improve the process and see where that gets you.
Your view implies that understanding density control is unimportant. Of course, I think you are wrong because the control of density is fundamental to the reduction of waste of paper and increase in capacity and quality with less skill. That has an economic impact on printers, etc. But again, you push for ignorance and I am not surprised.
The market for print is shrinking for all the reasons you state above. That's a given. What is your advice for printers? Get out of printing.
That's valid but it does nothing to help those printers that remain and are fighting to survive. Lean manufacturing helps reduce costs but since it does not address the electronic media issue, does that mean it is useless? I don't think so.
The problem in the printing industry would be solved if half of the printers volunteer to just go out of business. Not likely. That may probably happen one way or the other anyway.
Printers are not really competing with Google or any other electronic media. They are competing with the other printers that want a part of a shrinking market for print.
By Michael Josefowicz on Sep 22, 2008
Erik,
You say "The problem in the printing industry would be solved if half of the printers volunteer to just go out of business. Not likely. That may probably happen one way or the other anyway."
That may solve the problem of Print as an industry. We've seen this last week how that's playing out in the investment banking industry.
But it will not solve the problem of any particular printing company who doesn't want to go quietly into the night.
The issue for a printing firm is where to invest limited time. One choice is to make incremental improvements to make the process that already is "good enough" to make it even more stable. The second choice is to invest the time in figuring out the new uses of print that is valued by an addressable market.
I would go for the second.
By Dr Joe Webb on Sep 24, 2008
Minor clarification re my citation of Adobe's performance. Their bottom line is 24%. I should have noted that their gross profit exceeds that of the printing industry. Adobe's net profit for the last four quarters is about $900 million give or take a million here, a million there, and soon you're talking about real money.
Their sales per employee is $505,000, 3x the printing industry.
By Michael Josefowicz on Sep 25, 2008
Has anyone done the stats on sales per employee for printing firms? Sounds like it would be a good metric to guide investment decisions.
Discussion
Only verified members can comment.