Sun, 31 Jan 2010 13:14:12 PST investment banking, Paul Volcker, commercial banking, Glass-Steagall, Geithner, Volcker Rule Lloyd C. Blankfein, Chairman and CEO, Goldman Sachs
Financial markets quaked last week at the sound of the federal lending window being shut on investment banks. President Obama's pronouncement of 21-Jan-10 in support of the "Volcker Rule," which would forbid federally regulated commercial banks from participating in certain investment banking activities, are currently under international review and could ultimately lead to the restructuring of the largest four or five commercial banks, forcing them to spin off their investment banking arms. The Administration is further proposing that no banking institution be considered "too big to fail." Rather, in the event a large, private investment bank were to face insolvency, the federal government would have "resolution authority" to dissolve its assets in an orderly way, minimizing impact on the rest of the financial system.
Paul Volcker lays out the rationale for the proposed policy changes in today's New York Times, with the precise language and ponderous tone of an economics tome. Nonetheless, the targets of this tougher policy are clear: the investment banks which acquired commercial bank status during the bailout of late 2008 and which have subsequently incensed the taxpayers by using federal money to finance large personal bonuses for 2009.
Recall that during the consolidation of the banking industry that followed the abolition of the Glass-Steagal Act in 1999 and the emergency restructuring of the banking industry that immediately preceded the 2008 elections, the last of the largest investment banks were either acquired by commercial banks or filed for commercial bank status themselves. Investment banker JP Morgan and commercial bank Chase Manhattan merged in 2000 to form JP Morgan Chase and subsequently acquired another major commercial bank, Bank One, in 2004 and the investment bank Bear Stearns when the sub-prime crisis took hold in May, 2008. With the collapse of Washington Mutual on 25-Sept-08, the FDIC sold most of WAMU's banking operations to JP Morgan Chase.
The Federal Reserve Bank negotiated the acquisition of investment banker Merrill Lynch by commercial banker Bank of America on Sunday, 14-Sept-08. The next day investment banker Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy, setting off panic in the financial markets. (The initial A.I.G. bailout was arranged the following day.) That Sunday, 21-Sept-08, the last of the major investment banks, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, were granted commercial bank status. As a result of these moves, all of the major investment banks, whose fundamental purpose is to fund high-risk/high-return ventures on behalf of wealthy private investors, gained access to the "safety net" provided by the federal government to commercial banks.
The Volcker Rule goes well beyond bank reforms previously proposed by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Closing the federal lending window to speculative investment activities would effectively free up capital for the more mundane activities of providing liquidity for "main street" businesses and consumers. By taking the federal government explicitly out of the business of guaranteeing the credit-worthiness of investment bankers, the Volcker Rule would strengthen the U.S. currency and ultimately the credit-worthiness of the U.S. government. It would properly shift the risk of speculative investments from taxpayers back to the stockholders of investment banks.
A collection of posts about the US Economy is maintained here.
To learn more about our work in consulting, please see our Profile, download a brochure about our Practice, or check out our Case Studies.
Sun, 31 Jan 2010 04:52:13 PST Henry Paulson, bailout, Goldman Sachs, Timothy Geithner, Blankfein, Geithner, banking reform, Lloyd Blankfein, A.I.G.
As Congress frets about its upcoming decision on confirming Ben Bernanke as Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve, the White House is also rethinking its allegiances to its economic team. The President, of course, stands behind his nomination of Bernanke for a second term, rightly praising the Chairman's leadership in steering the financial system through the crisis of the past two years.
The Administration's shift, rather, seems to be away from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and White House Adviser Larry Summers and towards Paul Volcker and Austan Goolsbee, Chairman and Chief Economist, respectively, of the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board. For months former Fed Chairman Volcker has been advocating that regulated banks be prohibited from using depositors' money to invest on their own behalf. President Obama endorsed this position on Thursday (see video above), proclaiming his support for the "Volcker Rule."
While Volcker, Summers and Geithner officially worked together on the recommendations, as late as December 29, 2009 Volcker was telling Charlie Rose that his recommendations had not been accepted by the Administration.
[Charlie Rose] How should we create a well-oiled financial system?
[Paul Volcker] The kind of reform I've been advocating is acceptance of the fact that the core of the system remains commercial banking. If that breaks down then you have an enormous crisis. And commercial banks have expanded into areas I don't think are so central. I would cut back their so-called capital market activities—hedge funds, equity funds, commodities trading, trading in derivatives. They're all legitimate functions, but they're not so central. And I don't want to protect all those functions. I don't want to protect everybody because when people act like they're protected, you get in trouble. So let's leave the capital markets to their own devices without any expectation of government protection and keep the existing safety net for the commercial banking system.
In my judgment we don't need to regulate the capital markets so heavily. You have some extreme cases where individual institutions are so big and so vulnerable, yes, you might want some regulation of capital and leverage, but that would be the exception. But if they fail, let 'em fail. We will have some kind of a new resolution process. Some agency will go in there and say, "You're going to fail, but we're going to provide a more orderly exit."
But if you're a commercial bank, no matter how big you are, you should not be allowed to fail?
I wouldn't go so far as to say you're not going to be allowed to fail, but you're going to have a lot more protection available so that it would take pretty extreme circumstances to fail to the point that the institution disappears. The quid pro quo for that is more regulation and a limitation on your activities. I don't want [commercial banks] out doing a lot of speculative trading.
So does this mean we should restore Glass-Steagall? No. That's a false statement people make about my position. Glass-Steagall basically said banks cannot underwrite corporate securities or deal with corporate securities. But I would let commercial banks do underwriting of corporate customers. So you could argue that what I propose is somewhat in the spirit of Glass-Steagall in making a distinction between capital-market activities and trading activities and banking activities. But it is not specifically going back to Glass-Steagall...
So why haven't your views prevailed with the Administration? I wasn't persuasive enough.
How many meetings have you had with the President about this? Not very many but...the President has heard my arguments a number of times.
Has he heard them one on one, where you've had an opportunity to say "This, Mr. President, is why you need to make sure that commercial banks..." That's not the way the process works.
But do you feel like you have had sufficient opportunity with the President to make your case? Well, what's sufficient? He's the President. He decides.
You have one of the most powerful and persuasive voices in the global financial conversation. You flatter everybody. I am one voice in the conversation, and there are others.
This Administration began its life with nearly as many economic policy boards as challenges, including an ad hoc council on the automotive industry, the National Economic Council, headed by Summers, and the Council of Economic Advisors, headed by Christina Romer and on which Goolsbee also serves. Geithner and Summers have been strongly identified with plans that treat Wall Street gently, a stance now being attacked from both ends of the political spectrum. Geithner denied that the Administration's tougher stance on bank regulation was motivated by Scott Brown's victory in last week's Senatorial election, saying that the Administration began its review of economic policies "going back several weeks."
Geithner has been a subject of controversy since his confirmation hearings last year, when his failure to pay personal income taxes for several years as a staffer with the International Monetary Fund came to light. More recently, his involvement in the A.I.G. bailout while he was President of the New York Federal Reserve has come under scrutiny. This week his phone logs from that period were released, confirming that he, like then Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, had conversations with Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein as the A.I.G. bailout was structured. That deal, of course, put the U.S. government on the hook for 100% of risky deals secured by A.I.G., resulting in payments of federal funds through A.I.G. to Goldman Sachs of some $12.9 billion. Geithner is scheduled to testify before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform about that deal on Wednesday, January 27, just hours before Mr. Obama's first State of the Union Address.
One wonders whether the Administration will follow the leads of previous ones in announcing major Cabinet changes at the end of its first year. We would not be surprised to see President Obama thanking Geithner for his service as he announces replacements in key economic positions.
A collection of posts about the US Economy is maintained here.
To learn more about our work in consulting, please see our Profile, download a brochure about our Practice, or check out our Case Studies.
Sun, 31 Jan 2010 04:44:08 PST econometrics, Associated consultants, scholar, Consulting, Jan Kmenta, advisors, David Cornwell, John le Carre, spy, Intelligence failure, Tailor of Panama, spy novel, teacher Jan Kmenta, Professor of Econometrics
The work of the best novelists and scholars burrow into the psyche. Peculiarly in my own mind the British intelligence officer and novelist David Cornwell (aka John le Carré), and Czech-born Jan Kmenta, the wry professor of econometrics, are inextricably linked. Both exemplify their generation's dedication to finding truth in ambiguous settings through careful application of craft.
Kmenta would begin his graduate course in econometrics with a set of definitions:
An Economic Historian goes into a dark room looking for a black cat.
An Economic Theorist goes into a dark room looking for a black cat that is not there.
An Econometrician goes into a dark room looking for a black cat that is not there and declares: "I found it!"
The rest of the course (and the three that followed) was devoted to an arduous study of the theory and practice that would keep us from making any such a mistake. With humor Kmenta could shoulder the futility of his quest, but he could not abide those who mistook shortcuts for progress.
John le Carré These ruminations began when by some happy accident I picked up my decade-old copy of John le Carré's The Tailor of Panama. Writing in the mid-1990's, as the West was celebrating its accidental victory in the Cold War with the careless swagger of sophomores greeting the incoming freshman class, le Carré adapted his method to the times. Turning away from the earnest style of his previous spy novels, le Carré surprised his readers with a comic approach.
His unlikely protagonist, an expatriate tailor with a good heart and a questionable past, is recruited by a novice spy of uncertain virtue. Together they set out to prove the existence of conspiracy fabricated from whole cloth. True to his craft but inept in spycraft, the tailor weaves selective data with imaginative storytelling to flatter the careless and comfort the powerful. The institutions charged with analyzing and verifying his reports fail to question false information that suits their narrow interests. Let loose in a benign environment, the misdirected agents of change wreck havoc.
In the aftermath of the Western intelligence failures of this twenty-first century, John le Carré seems eerily prescient. By the same token, clients are advised to select their consultants and govern their projects with unusual diligence. It is all too easy to prove the existence of black cats that were never there.
To learn more about our work in consulting, please see our Profile, download a brochure about our Practice, or check out our Case Studies.
Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs become regulated bank holding companies, ending era of Investment Banking
Wed.
24-Sep-08
Economists submit letter in opposition to the original Paulson Plan, claiming it is unfair, ambiguous and short-sighted
Thurs.
25-Sep-08
Regulators seize Washington Mutual Saving and Loan and arrange sale to JP Morgan Chase
Sun.
28-Sep-08
First draft of Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (HR 3997)
Mon.
29-Sep-08
HR 3997 fails to pass the U.S. House
Wed.
1-Oct-08
Senate passes HR 1424, a modified version of the bill
Fri.
3-Oct-08
Congress passes HR 1424 and President G.W. Bush signs it into law
Week ending 10/10
Dow Jones loses 18% of value in one week.Iceland seizes its banks.Britain proposes direct investment in banks
Sat.
11-Oct-08
G7 finance ministers, then Group of 20 meet at White House to coordinate policy
Mon.
13-Oct-08
Paulson and Bernanke meet with leaders of 9 largest banks.Get agreement on direct infusion of cash
Mon.
10-Nov-08
AIG bailout restructured to include $60 billion loan from US Federal Reserve, $40 billion in securities purchased by US Treasury, and credit lines of up to $30 billion backed by Credit Default Swaps and $22.5 billion against mortgage-backed securities
A collection of posts about the US Economy is maintained here.
To learn more about our work in consulting, please see our Profile, download a brochure about our Practice, or check out our Case Studies.
Tue, 22 Dec 2009 07:29:32 PST JP Farrell, Public option, Explanation of Health Care Bill, Economics, H.R.3200, James P Farrell, health insurance, Health Care Reform, health care bill, Health Care image from http://www.PiperReport.com
With the final markups of the Affordable Health Choices Act now clearing committees in the U.S. House of Representatives, the potential scope of the legislation is becoming clear. And, while the American Medical Association is on board with H.R. 3200, the House version of the bill, the insurance industry is coming out swinging.
Doctors have to appreciate several aspects of the bill. First, the bill would extend insurance coverage to tens of millions of Americans who currently are denied coverage by insurance companies or who simply can not afford it. (See An Explanation of the Health Care Bill.) Second, the bill enhances the role of the primary care physician in determining the effective course of treatment and offers economic incentives for doctors and medical students to take on this role. The bill also addresses flaws in the Medicare reimbursement mechanism and includes measures to promote wellness and disease prevention.
Insurance companies seem most concerned about the introduction of a government-operated insurance plan, which they view as unfair competition. Health care economists argue that a government plan is required in order to:
Ensure access to affordable care
Provide market leadership in setting standards and negotiating prices for medical services, which currently vary widely by market
Develop (and share) processes and information systems for accurately assessing and paying claims
The legislative history of the bill, a work in process, demonstrates considerable cooperation between and within the Congressional chambers. The Senate had split the bill into two components. Sections of the bill relating to reform of insurance and other mechanisms for funding health care were drafted by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (H.E.L.P.). That Committee completed its work on the bill on July 15, 2009 and submitted it to the full Senate for consideration after the August recess. The Senate Finance Committee, which took responsibility for drafting legislation governing the cost of health care, has not completed its work.
In the meantime, the U.S. House divided its work among three committees, all of which have completed markup of H.R. 3200. That version of the bill closely mirrors provisions of the bill passed by the Senate H.E.L.P. Committee, but also covers areas still under debate in the Senate Finance Committee. Having effectively taken the lead in the legislation, the House of Representatives is expected to pass H.R. 3200 following the August recess, perhaps with amendments taken from the floor of the House, and submit it to the Senate. At that point the Senate may choose to accept it as it stands (which is unlikely) or continue work on its own version of the legislation. If the Senate passes a bill that differs from H.R. 3200, the House and Senate leadership would then create a Conference Committee made up of representatives from each chamber to negotiate a bill that would be acceptable to both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Important provisions of H.R.3200 that have not been cleared by a Senate Committee would empower the government plan to aggressively negotiate prices, delivery methods and standards of service with providers. The debate about the government's role in determining what kind of care is most efficient and effective is bound to be most contentious.
Expecting a fight in the Senate, the Administration has already begun to telegraph its fallback position by referring to the bill as "insurance reform." In other words, having gotten similar insurance reform provisions through committees in both the Senate and the House, the Administration is confident that at least those aspects of the bill will become law. And, while they would like to adopt stronger measures to accelerate cost containment, those more controversial measures could be sacrificed in the interests of getting insurance industry restructuring underway.
Businesses large and small should be prepared to reevaluate their health care policies, providers and pension plans in light of this new legislation. Economic effects are likely to be profound.
Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:34:08 PDT Management, investment, JP Farrell, Liquidity, planning, James P Farrell, consultant Mr. Monopoly
Economic crises beget struggle and restructuring and renewal.
When the housing market collapsed and the banking system all but failed, our present became divorced from our future. Corporate planning has been replaced by cash control; investment by saving; loyalty by expediency. Without faith that tomorrow would be at least as good as today, corporations have been reevaluating every asset, obligation and commitment, seeking every opportunity to convert capital into cash.
This market, like all before it, will turn. Shortages of inventory are creating needs for production. By liquidating unproductive assets and renegotiating future obligations businesses are improving cash flow. Drops in commodity prices are boosting profitability. Excess government spending is creating demand, often in new sectors. Some of the people freed from unproductive employment are inventing new technologies, products and services more appropriate to the needs of their times.
Liquidity + Good Plan = Opportunity
Investment bargains abound. Suppliers are willing to renegotiate long-term contracts in order to secure base business. Technology companies using the most flexible and open platforms have learned how to manage developers from low-cost regions. Empty condominiums can house a new generation of renters. Highly trained and experienced managers are seeking new opportunities.
Virtually every corporation must realign its assets, obligations and capabilities to position itself for healthy growth. Now, while assets are undervalued, is the time to engage in long-term planning. Relatively small outlays today to bring in experienced, independent consultants can help time-strapped executives plan tomorrow's investments without taking management focus away from achieving liquidity.
A collection of posts about the US Economy is maintained here.
To learn more about our work in consulting, please see our Profile, download a brochure about our Practice, or check out our Case Studies.
Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:34:35 PDT Refabricating Architecture, James Timberlake, JP Farrell, Enterprise Architecture, Economics, Consulting, Stephen Kieran, Retail Lifecycle Management, James P Farrell, Restaurant Development Architects Stephen Kieran (left) and James Timberlake (right)
In their path breaking work, Refabricating Architecture:How Manufacturing Methodologies are Poised to Transform Building Construction, Stephen Kieran and James Timberlake argue that the architect of a complex structure must reassert the role of conceptual leader of designers, builders, product engineers and materials scientists. Too often, they argue, architects are relegated to the role of designer, as commercial builder/contractors have taken the lead in bringing cookie-cutter structures from design to completion. The cost of this abnegation of control to project engineers has been a failure to innovate and acceptance of a false choice between usefulness and artistry.
Similarly, our Retail Lifecycle Management model requires that the developer of the retail enterprise define and guide the physical design of store formats that connect the firm's commercial vision with its marketing message, operations capabilities and target customers. We see Store Development, the management of investment in retail structures across time and geography, as the purview of general management, an integrative function drawing as much on the disciplines of economics, organizational development and information management, supply chain strategy and contract law as on architecture, design and construction.
Since publishing our newsletter on Restaurant Lifecycle Management, we have tested these concepts with leaders in chain restaurant, architecture, software and design firms. Surprisingly few restaurant chains can answer a simple question: "Who is responsible for managing investments in restaurant design, construction and remodeling." Generally management admits to being frustrated by an inability to influence store design, while architects complain that management is unwilling to fund investment in the innovative technology that would help them become more integral to the business. Having long ago decided to leave design to the experts, management complains that its design process seems mismanaged.
Bridging this management chasm requires not an architectural solution, but an organizational one. Retailers are advised to establish store development organizations with full responsibility for managing their investments in store design, site development, construction, and equipment. Just as the Operations Group is responsible for managing store profit and loss, so should a Store Development Group control the substantial budgets for design, construction and remodeling. At the same time, retailers should go about reclaiming the intellectual properties tied up in their designs, CAD drawings and layouts that have been scattered among their many contractors, agencies and franchisees.
There are a couple of hopeful signs. One fast-growing restaurant chain where the store development function is managed by an attorney stipulates in its franchisee agreement that contractors of franchisees work from corporate prototype designs and then submit "as built" designs to corporate upon completion. At another equally fast-growing chain, a staff designer lists Refabricating Architecture on his on-line list of recommended reading.
You might be a transportation consultant if…You get excited when you see a truck and know that you have never driven one
You might be a transportation consultant if…You know what a dock plate is but not how to operate it
You might be a transportation consultant if…You know the on-highway retail diesel price, but not how to use it
You might be a transportation consultant if…You can put together a deck of power point slides in 30 seconds and it actually makes sense
You might be a transportation consultant if…You have played consultant’s challenge and spoken intellectually about a random slide a colleague has protected on a screen
You might be a transportation consultant if…You have frequent flyer miles on 25 airlines and have gold status on 5 of them
You might be a transportation consultant if…You are never more than 2 feet away from a laptop
You might be a transportation consultant if…You know the acronym TMS and 20 just like it
You might be a transportation consultant if…You measure age by who remembered deregulation
You might be a transportation consultant if…You worked for Cleveland Consulting Associates
You might be a transportation consultant if…You know what FAK means and can actually explain it
You might be a transportation consultant if…You are accused of not having a job
Submissions for additional“You might be a transportation consultant if…” can be added at:
An article in the Monday, November 17th edition of the Wall Street Journal outlines some of the reasons diesel fuel is likely to remain much more expensive than gasoline.
In addition to the tax difference (diesel has higher taxes on it in the US – a point the WSJ did not mention), there are world-forces pushing the cost of diesel.Key factors include:
Buyers of new European cars are now specifying diesel engines more than 50% of the time.In France and Belgium, 70% of all new cars are diesel because consumers recognize diesel as being more efficient, better environmentally, and in Europe, there are lower taxes on diesel.
Refinery capacity for diesel is going beyond tight.Europe buys a big portion of its diesel from elsewhere.Russia, one of the biggest suppliers of the 700,000 bbl/day of diesel imported to Europe, has old refiners and may have difficulty meeting standards for the ultra-low sulfur (cleaner) diesel.At the same time, European refineries have not invested in diesel cracking equipment – which is more expensive than gasoline production facilities.An interesting bye product of this is that Europe exports a lot of gasoline to the USA.The only new refinery capacity is coming on line in India – which will generate 580,000 bbl/day of diesel.
China is using diesel to make electricity.The recent downturn in electricity demand in that country (4%) may have freed up a lot of diesel – as China has a huge “base” generation capacity in coal fired plants.As China’s economy and infrastructure projects pick up steam, this will put a lot of pressure on fuel-oil supplies.
This can all be summarized by a quote from Pands Cavoulacos – President of the European Petroleum Industry Association – “I don’t see how we can add sufficient capacity over the next decade to handle the increasing demand for diesel in Europe.”...and since it is a world market, expect what hurts Europe and Asian supplies will impact us here in the US.
While Europe will change taxation of fuel cost to favor diesel, this will not overcome the added power and efficiency of diesel and its position as the preferred fuel for cars.And, if current model introductions in the US are any indication, more diesel cars and SUV’s will be using more fuel here in the US.
The bottom line:More demand, fixed production capabilities, and global transfers means that diesel will continue to be a premium cost fuel for the next 10-15 years.
Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:17:00 +0000 Logistics Management, Supply Chain Management, Freight Rates, Scheduling Software, diesel prices, Transportation Consultants Talking with the logistics director of a Fortune 50 Company, he related their conversion to SAP. He described it as “Ruthless Standardization.” Immediately, images come to my mind of a group of IT geeks on horseback, armed with axes and swords, riding through the ranks of Operations people – indiscriminately slaying them.
While my imagination may be a little far fetched, Operations do appear to be the victims in standardization. In this instance, Operations loses its ability to:
Increase load size using optimization technology
Move orders. For example – a full load of product made in Atlanta must ship to a Seattle customer from the local warehouse rather than direct from the plant
How is it that the complexities of the US market are ignored in the quest for standardization? Why are small countries, like my native land of New Zealand – with 4 million people – and one DC treated the same as the great US market? I have a conspiracy theory. My belief is that the IT folks believe that the millions of dollars spent in the operations area is hidden. At the end of the project, they can point to IT head-count reductions and “hard savings.” Operations expense, after all, is often confused by the various “world” changes. Operations costs increase but it is all blamed on fuel or insurance… not paucity of systems. In the case of the Fortune 50 Company, the cost will be many millions in one division alone.
I am not sure if it is possible to convince the IT folks that “keep it simple” (KIS) is stupid. If this were me, I’d add a line to my budget – “the cost of ruthless standardization” – and track all the cost to that.
We all know that the infrastructure is under pressure.Congested roads, bridges that are in urgent need of repair, and roads that should have been ripped up years ago are everywhere.Yet both presidential candidates are talking about a stimulus package – giving money to consumers who will buy flat panel TV’s made in China.Here is an idea:invest the same amount of money in the roads and bridges we use every day.While we don’t need or envision anything on the scale of the “New Deal”, a focus on bridges, for example, will create good jobs for construction workers, steel manufacturers and equipment manufacturers.The value to industry is huge.The trickle-down impact will be great – and the country gets lasting benefits from stimulus.Can somebody please tell Mr. McCain & Mr. Obama?
The bottom line:Consumers and the economy will benefit from investment in infrastructure
A July 11 article in CFO magazine entitled “What Keeps CFOs Up at Night?” - http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/11731286/c_3805465 - has senior writer Kate O’Sullivan politely pointing out that with oil at $140 a barrel, the cost of fuel has officially registered on finance executives radar screens.About time!The impact that $4.70/gallon diesel will have on the economy, and each company, is large.Consider the fact that most consumer product companies provide free freight to their customers, when they order a truckload of product.This means that the only way they can recoup the additional cost is to increase the prices of their products.If product costs go up – you and I are the ones that pay at the store.Hello inflation!Hello higher interest rates!Hello a big slow down!
CFO’s should be kept awake at night by fuel costs as their companies’ margins are under fire.Some how they need to support their operations team’s efforts to reign in the fuel monster. What is this somehow?Since IT normally works in the finance side of the house, the CFO needs to influence his IT people into providing genuine support – not, as I heard from a client, “we are getting SAP in 5 years, that will solve all your operational problems.” You could not make this kind of stuff up!Who can wait that long?How many gallons of diesel will need to be wasted before we stem the flow?
Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:03:00 +0000 fuel cost, Supply Chain Management, Freight Rates, diesel prices, Transportation Consultants When you talk to many car drivers, they complain of “nearly being run off the road” by speeding trucks. Many of us have cut our speed but a wide range of owner operators and small fleets don’t seem to have got the message:
“SLOW DOWN – SAVE FUEL”
Time must be – to them at least – more valuable than money.
During the oil embargo of the 1970’s, speed limits were dropped to 55 mph. The concept of doing this is totally repugnant to us all… but the simple fact remains, we are, as a nation, spending too much on oil. The balance of payments can’t afford this huge spike in imports.
The bottom line:Truckers need to slow down before they are forced to slow down
