I have been accused of being the eternal optimist. Guilty as charged. Our economy seems to have turned a corner; employment is gaining steam and the stock market is surging. Yet housing seems to be stuck in quicksand.

I am not here to dispense any investment advice, but instead want to pass on some observations on the plight of the U.S. housing market. While much is being made of the insolvency of European banks, we should be equally troubled by the assets held by the largest U.S. banks.

Consider the prospects of Bank of America. The bellwether financial institution required a government bail out, and an infusion by Warren Buffet after its prepackaged acquisition of Countrywide’s toxic assets. The bank holds a staggering $400 Billion+ in U.S. mortgage debt, a third of it in home equity lines of credit – the true villain in the U.S. real estate collapse.

According to B of A, 5% of its mortgage portfolio assets are “non-performing” or are in default.  Some have accused the bank of uneven accounting on its balance sheet.[i] Some estimates forecast as much as 39% of its portfolio having a combined loan to value rate below 100% (upside-down). It is expected that about a third of those mortgages could default, and that the banks losses for the average loan are far higher than 50%. Unlike past swings in the market, foreclosed homes have little retained value for the lender, and are boarded up or even torn down. JP Morgan, Citibank and Wells Fargo do not fair much better in terms of performing assets[ii].

Perhaps even more perplexing is weakness in the underlying real estate market.  Economist Paul Dales of Capital Economics suggests there is an excess inventory of more than 1 Million residential properties. Housing supply is somewhat stagnant. In Los Angeles for example inventory has gone down 1.65% through September but prices showed 0% change for the year[iii]. As a result, housing starts are projected at a tepid 620,000 for 2012 (according to Federal estimates)[iv]

Even though money is very cheap, many borrowers can’t qualify for a mortgage under the exacting standards being employed by banks. Under tight scrutiny by regulators, we are seeing the familiar rubber band effect as lenders have gone from one extreme to the other – lending to everybody with a pulse to rejecting buyers with cash and good credit scores.

Consumer behavior has also shifted. While lower than 2010, a whopping 17% of defaults are “strategic defaults” where borrowers can afford their monthly payment, but simply walk away.[v]

What is hurtful is not only the affect that the real estate market has on realtors, title companies and mortgage lenders; but the shadow economy it supports. Construction and subprime manufacturers of everything from lighting fixtures to lumber are suffering at the hands of weak U.S. housing demand.  The reality is that much of our economy’s GDP growth over the last two decades is a reflection of a false premise, that Americans can just pull money out of their homes on demand.

So as the housing market goes, so goes our economy. Forecasts of 2 and 3% growth rates are a direct result of consumer affluence being minimized by zero wage growth and declining property values.

While economists are cautiously optimistic about America’s future (as am I), we need to be cognizant that a further depression of the housing market could lead to the failure or bail out of U.S. banks which undoubtedly would reverse recent market gains and economic momentum.

I believe this is a defining moment in our history. Our nation is in a fight for its soul. What kind of country do we want to be? I think we are the nation that takes care of its own.

Twelve percent of the 240,000 American veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are unemployed. Thirty percent of those under 24 are jobless, double the national average [i].  This is a national tragedy of epic proportions and those reading this post are the ones who can do something about it.

We can’t begin to repay veterans for the years they served for the country, the friends and family they have lost, or the sleep lost over the horrors of war.

But we can give them a chance to have a life when they come home.

Every company in America who is hiring should put veterans at the front of the line.

Hiring a veteran is a gift, not for them (they have earned the right to work) but for us. We should hire them because:

• Veterans make great employees: loyal, trustworthy, disciplined, hard working and tough.

• The Hire Heroes Act of 2011, passed last month (517-0 in Congress) provides up to $5,600 in tax credits to employers who hire a veteran

• Veterans provide inspiration to other employees, and send a message about what kind of employer you want to be

• Hiring war heroes helps drive home corporate values and messaging that resonates with customers, investors , vendors and the communities we serve

• Veterans are capable, many having mastered transferable technical skills

As the last American soldiers return from Iraq this week, we should take pause. As we celebrate our family, friends and faith, we should be thinking about those who have sacrificed so much, and have been received so little.

Most of us entrepreneurs have been the benefactors of American freedom, and it is time for us to show our appreciation.

Below are a set of resources for searching for qualified veterans:

http://www.vetjobs.com/

http://www.militaryhire.com/?gclid=CMT4ksjyia0CFQg1hwodswjGmg

http://www.hireveterans.com/

http://blogs.payscale.com/compensation/2010/01/tips-for-employers-hiring-veterans.html

---

[i] Unemployed for Young Vets by Dan Deucke Bloomberg Businessweek November 11, 2011

In Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell asserts that one needs to invest 10,000 hours in an activity in order to become an expert. I take solace in knowing that I am evidently both an expert in Strategic Planning, and overcoming the drama induced by teenage daughters.

The rapid escalation of global competition has brought about a new round of hyper-specialization.  The concept of specialization is nothing new; the division of labor has been a key tenant of economics since the birth of capitalism. Yet sites such as Guru or eLance, have propelled specialization to a new art form, where one can access dozens of specialists from around the world in any conceivable competency in a matter of minutes.

Specialties that do not require any special education (other than what is readily available on the internet) such as graphic arts have quickly commoditized. You can hire a graphic artist online for $15 an hour.  In cases where greater technical aptitude is required, specialists still out-earn generalists. The median Internist in the U.S. earns $176K per year, while Cardiologists earn a median of $403K (some make $800K or more). [i] If you had a heart attack, which would you see?

Perhaps the most common strategic blunder I observe within entrepreneurial companies is a penchant for addressing overly broad targets. Marketers, seeking the largest audience cast too wide a net. In their need to satisfy the largest number of prospects, they become de facto generalists. That is, instead of addressing a niche market with specific solutions, they try to satisfy a larger audience with a multitude of products and services. At some point, the value they can provide suffers from diminishing returns.

The more crowded a space, the more difficult it is to differentiate, and the greater the need for expertise. Before its bankruptcy filing, GM attempted to sell within every segment, from sub-compact to Hummer. GM experienced what is often referred to as the peanut butter effect; the wider you spread something, the thinner it gets. GM’s branding was diluted and ability to control quality constrained.

Many small businesses may employ generalists because of their lack of talent depth. To have one IT professional manage a network, build the company website, select an ERP package and fix all the desktops is an archaic paradigm worthy of recalculation.

The reason that specialists are worth more than generalists is that they have a deeper subject matter expertise that drives:[ii]

Quality-Processes replicated over time promote less deviation, less defects and fewer errors.  The specialist thinks deeply about an area of expertise in which they have experience and are less likely to make mistakes.

Speed- Specialists do not need to reinvent things. Cycle times on proposals and product delivery is faster. If a company offers 50 stock products instead of 500, they can manage less inventory and ship items quicker. For every new project outside the boundaries of a company’s expertise there is resource draining learning curve that costs time and money.

Relationships-As the specialist is highly respected, their opinions are sought after by the media and people who want to know them, hire them and refer them to others.

The realities of outsourcing and off-shoring are driven by these phenomena. It is inherently inefficient to participate in activities that are not within a firm’s core competency and do not directly contribute to the bottom line. Thus, the migration of labor (outsourcing) will rise at a fervent rate.

In fact, the entire concept of the corporation, with its multiple functional departments (such as accounting, sales and marketing, design, operations, engineering, manufacturing, etc.) is under some attack. Social norms around what constitutes a working environment are shifting quickly and enabling greater specialization. Collaboration tools make the world of work far more virtual, which will continue to feed the frenzy.

Think about how to specialize as to optimize your revenue, margin and profit.

The protesters marched on the highway, despondent about rapid inflation.  They shut down the thoroughfare for hours. 1000 miles away, protesters flocked the capital and drove the legislators to safe haven in neighboring territories.

These were fundamentalists in Tunisia or Libya; they were students in California and state workers in Wisconsin.

The impetus for civil unrest in the Middle East is that of the “lost generation” of unemployed misdirected youth.  In some regions of the world, unemployment is 40% or more.  In the U.S. , it is not just the young that face underemployment but generations of workers whose skills have become irrelevant.  The U.S. has the western world’s widest income distribution. The Top 10% make 6 times that of the bottom 10%, compared to 4.2 X for Great Britain and 2.8 X for Sweden[i].  The labor market has hollowed, as wages earned by shop floor workers have actually declined (when adjusted for inflation) over the last two decades.

The labor imbalance in the U.S. has far reaching implications, not only for the unemployed but for our economy as a whole.  The inability of low wage earners to consume is a strain on U.S. growth.

While there is plenty of banter about the need for jobs, there is no systematic solution in place for retraining American workers such as displaced auto and steel workers. President Obama has called on U.S. business leaders to: “generate ideas for creating jobs, sustaining the economic recovery and making America more competitive”[ii].

Of course the notion of “creating jobs” is a little too convenient. Jobs are created when there is a need for them, and Americans get the jobs when they offer the most value. The problem is not that there are not enough jobs; it is that the cost-benefit for the employer often tips towards off-shoring.  If our workers do not offer enough value in the form of specialized knowledge, ability to use technology, etc., jobs will continue to be shipped overseas.

This is not a protectionist rant, and my comments aren’t intended to incite a riot on free trade, or China manipulating currency, etc. I am focused on what we can control.  What our nation needs is a retraining effort. The money we are spending on unemployment and other services would be better spent invested in people so that they can acquire new skill sets that are relevant in an ever changing world.

The question is who will lead, and who will pick up the bill?  To prepare our workers for the future will require collaboration across business and government. Tax and other incentives need to be in place to encourage the retooling of America. So as GE Chairman Jeffery Immelt and the rest of the White House Council of Economic Affairs weighs in on jobs, I hope they emphasize that we need to create opportunities for workers, and provide them will the skill sets required to compete.

Otherwise, the marches may extend to Washington D.C. and a state capital near you.

---

[i] The Price of Everything Eduardo Porter

[ii] Obama wants business world’s best ideas on jobs USA Today

A federal judge’s recent ruling that elements of the health care bill are unconstitutional has heightened the health care debate.  Republicans, feeling their oats and perceiving a mandate are threatening to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

It was only after my friend and colleague Dr. Bala Chandrasekhar explained most of the information in this post to me that I first came to understand the fundamental problem.  Our medical community suffers from perverse incentives. The system does not reward results; it rewards the extension of care.

In the world’s best hospitals, such as the Mayo Clinic, physicians collaborate, in a finite space, where information is shared and decisions are made. In the overwhelming majority of cases, patients are shuttled around, from general practitioners, to specialist, and from one laboratory to the next.  Information about the patient’s medical history is rarely shared, an approach that does not support the best medical outcome for patients.

The advent of electronic medical records and new rules governing payments is the impetus to consolidation in a business so unsophisticated, that many medical files and prescriptions are managed with a piece of paper, pen and fax machine.  The institution of medicine needs to undergo radical change, and the prospects of larger organizations managing our care means that the stakes are getting higher.

Unlike professionally managed businesses, there are massive variations in best practices in medical groups.  Physicians hate oversight, and we pay the price in an estimated 100,000 people a year dying in U.S. hospitals from pure negligence (errors).

It is intuitive to all of us that raising medical care costs are unsustainable, yet the numbers are daunting.  The convergence of an aging populace and exponential health care inflation will double Medicare costs within a decade.  By 2020, Medicare and Medicaid are projected to increase from 21% to over 30% of federal spending (non-interest payments), and that doesn’t include massive spending by state and local governments. Proponents argue that we have the best medical care in the world; but at what cost? A knee replacement that costs upward of $40,000 in the U.S., costs $5,000 in Germany. We all want the best health care, but at some point common sense must prevail.

According to the bipartisan congressional report -Restoring America’s Future, “slowing the growth of health spending is realistic. Other advanced countries have substantially lower health spending as a share of GDP, while still achieving measures of access and quality that often exceed those in the United States. Although a uniquely American approach is required, these comparisons show what is achievable.” Health care reform focuses on capping costs for doctors and reforming various forms of insurance coverage (including universal coverage). It does little to reform the underlying behavioral issues that are driving up health care costs.  The fee for service model is dated and irrelevant.

If these costs are not constrained, our fiscal mess will get much worse, and our businesses and personal wealth will be drained by massive tax increases.  Small business owners, who bear the brunt of a bloated health care bureaucracy in the form of inflated health insurance premiums must advocate for more meaningful reforms.  Our economic future depends on it.