Alternative Musics: personal finance programs

On Monday, I linked to this op-ed from Tom Esvlin, Vermont's "stimulus czar," lamenting the way the money got spent. "Although I'd like to think Vermont did better than many states, much of the money ended up continuing bloated programs rather than providing a transition to a sustainable future," he wrote. That same day, Brookings' Gary Burtless e-mailed in a rebuttal that's worth quoting at length, as it's a very clear description of where the stimulus funds actually went, and why such a small percentage was directly devoted to building things. So here it is, with some edits for space:

The main problem with that silly op-ed is that it refers to only a small slice of the actual federal spending on stimulus authorized by the Feb. 2009 legislation. So far, the overwhelming share of that stimulus has been devoted to three items: Tax cuts for households; direct benefits to people adversely affected by the severe recession, mostly the unemployed or poor; and fiscal relief to state and local governments. Vermont did not need any "Czar" to receive or administer funds under these programs. The money for them quickly left the U.S. Treasury without any effort on the part of the Czar who penned this highly misleading op-ed piece. People in Vermont *directly* received benefits from the stimulus as: (1) lower federal tax withholding from their paychecks; (2) extended unemployment benefits; (3) premium subsidies so they could maintain their health insurance after they were laid off from a job in which they received health protection; (4) miscellaneous benefits (e.g., for college costs) under one provision or another; and (5) aid from the Treasury that permitted Vermont and its localities to finance their Medicaid and K-12 education programs without hiking taxes or lowering other public spending. The kinds of infrastructure spending for which the WSJ's "Czar" had some responsibility constituted a small percentage of the stimulus the Congress authorized for 2009 and 2010.

In FY 2009 and 2010, the EXPECTED spending on infrastructure and other items for which the Vermont “Czar” may have had partial responsibility accounted for just 11% of anticipated spending under the stimulus legislation. The other 89% had nothing to do with the programs criticized by Vermont’s supposed Czar. Thus, all of his complaints – even if justified – are essentially irrelevant to the programs mainly supported by the stimulus law … at least so far. Obviously, in the years 2011-2019, that kind of stimulus spending would have accounted for a vastly larger share of outlays. But (and perhaps Vermont’s Czar has not kept up with this because he does not read a daily paper) the Congress just passed and the President just signed ANOTHER stimulus program consisting of more than 90% personal and business tax cuts and less than 10% extensions in unemployment benefits. So far as I know, very little additional spending has been authorized for those hated infrastructure / technology investment projects. Below is the CBO’s year-by-year analysis of the spending authorized under the Feb. 2009 stimulus law:

My own private view is that the country would probably have been better off if *MORE* of the original stimulus had been devoted to infrastructure / technology investment (more of it would have been spent on goods and services produced in the U.S. rather than China, East Asia, and Europe). Setting aside that consideration for a minute, what infuriates me about the piece cited in your blog is that it reinforces the very widespread but totally erroneous impression that Congress and the Administration were unaware of the administrative hurdles to fast spending that the “Czar” points out in his op-ed. Those hurdles were understood from the very beginning, which is precisely the reason that infrastructure/technology investment projects constituted such a small percentage of the total package. It is perfectly legitimate to criticize the pace of spending on these projects, but it is utterly deranged to think that the slow rate of spending on the projects constitutes a serious indictment of the spending authorized under the Feb. 2009 stimulus program. Very little of the expected spending under the stimulus program (at least so far) was supposed to be devoted to those projects.

Mesoloan

Now, as for today's entrepreneurs, first up today was Hardika Shah presenting Mesoloan, a small enterprise loan program for Indian entrepreneurs in the $2,000-$20,000 loan size bracket. This is a segment that is well beyond traditional micro-finance, but also somewhat below the scope of the regular financial institutions. Hardika intends to build a financial institution focused on this segment with financing from social entrepreneurship oriented venture funds like Unitus.

It turns out that in my Vision India 2020 book, I have a similar project called FDBI. My personal analysis is that to make a financial institution successful by catering to the said segment will require a tight control of the types of businesses that are financed. This is why I have focused on micro-franchise oriented businesses where a tightly controlled structure is replicated across a large number of small businesses. My recommendation to Hardika is to study the FDBI project

DaisyClip

Next Annette McClellan presented DaisyClip, a non-surgical contraception device for women that she is in the process of syndicating a $1.8 million financing round for. Her market penetration plan is to start with India, and she wanted to know what kinds of options/connections we could provide. Well, there are some government and NGO contacts that I have in mind for her to explore. However, she will, of course, need to clear the clinical trials and get the proper regulatory approvals.

Voices.com

Our next presenter was David Ciccarelli discussing Voices.com, an interesting niche marketplace for freelance voice talent used by businesses and entertainment companies. David has 25,000 freelancers of which about 20% are paying subscribers (a very good number). He also has 120,000 companies using the talent from his marketplace.

David asked how to convert more of his users to paying users. I pointed him to the oDesk case study in which I have discussed the strategy for a marketplace in great detail. David is also struggling with the notion of his community taking the transactions offline.

Well, eLance has experienced similar problems, and I asked David to concentrate on communicating to his user base of service providers the value of building a reputation through references and reviews/customer feedback. Taking the transaction offline would mean the service provider would not get any feedback from the transaction. Nor will she or he get any assistance with dispute resolution, for example. Overall, I felt that making the reputation-building features available only to the premium members would be a good way to convert more free users to paying customers.

Marketing Green Products and Services to Indian Consumers

Then Tarini Kinkar discussed a media concept for marketing green products and services to Indian consumers. The business idea was not very well fleshed out, and needs a lot of work still. One of my key concerns is that the level of awareness about green and environmentally conscious issues is very, very low in India. Also, the business model for the business is unclear.

Thursday, January 6, 2011

personal finance programs

Mesoloan

DaisyClip

Voices.com

Marketing Green Products and Services to Indian Consumers

Klonossurface encounters rock tops surface encounters noblesville

No comments:

Post a Comment

Klonos
surface encounters rock tops surface encounters noblesville