Some Banks Are Too Small to Succeed

Image of Businessmen shaking hands

At a time when there’s much focus on what divides us, it’s easy to forget that most people agree on some things. Chief among these is our hope for a strong economy that produces opportunity. And while those on the left and right have different ideas about how to get there, virtually everyone agrees that a vibrant pipeline of new businesses creating new jobs and innovation is at the core of it.

But what’s at the core of new business creation? Entrepreneurs. You know, those stubborn dreamers who can’t help but imagine how the world should be and then try to build businesses that move in that direction. Yet even though entrepreneurs can be found throughout the U.S., the capital they need for new businesses has become increasingly concentrated in a few large geographic markets. A 2017 study by the Economic Innovation Group found that the “extreme concentration of these vital sources of capital into a few hubs means much of the country’s entrepreneurial potential remains latent in underserved and overlooked regional ecosystems.”

Historically, community banks—those with less than $10 billion in assets—have been the primary source of lending to new businesses in rural communities. In bankrolling rural entrepreneurs, community banks possessed a key advantage: They knew the character of their borrowers. This personal relationship permitted budding entrepreneurs in areas largely outside the venture-capital ecosystem to gain access to the capital they needed to open a beauty salon, a restaurant or a plumbing business.

Unfortunately, the crush of regulations that followed the 2008 financial crisis has required community banks to pull back from character-based loans. A 2015 Harvard working paper found that since 2010, when regulations increased on these institutions, community-bank lending to small businesses has rapidly declined. Rather than hire loan officers, community banks have been forced to hire compliance officers charged with applying regulatory rules, originally developed for money-center banks, to small institutions. As one small lender told The Wall Street Journal, “When they created ‘too big to fail,’ they also created ‘too small to succeed.’ ”

The reduction in character-based lending by community banks doesn’t just mean fewer Waffle House franchises and beauty salons employing people in small-town America. Because of the internet, business location is less important than ever. In other words, an entrepreneur in rural Georgia who might have previously opened a new retail store, today might start the next Amazon.com . But she could only start that disruptive business with access to capital.

Solving this problem will require a combination of approaches, including legislative initiatives like the Investing in Opportunity Act’s plan to promote investment in distressed communities through tax incentives. But cleaning up the regulatory mess is an obvious place to start. Community banks should be governed by different regulations, enforced by different regulators, than those at money-center financial institutions, ones who understand the unique risks small institutions face.

With less regulation, community banks could devote a portion of their capital to small-business lending that generates jobs, innovation and growth. There’s an entire group of potential entrepreneurs whose ideas have yet to be unlocked. Who knows how far-reaching their innovation might be, if given the chance?

Mr. Ricketts is the founder of TD Ameritrade and now pursues various entrepreneurial and philanthropic projects, including Entrepreneurs Create Jobs.

(Read the full Op-ed by Joe Ricketts in THE WALL STREET JOURNAL)

Why I’m Against Unions At Businesses I Create

Image of hand holding us currency

It is the Free Enterprise system that has made this country an economically wealthy and powerful nation and I enjoy participating in it.  And I like starting businesses that solve problems and create jobs.  In fact, I love it.

When a business succeeds, it’s fantastic; fantastic for the people working in the business, and fantastic for consumers who benefit from a new product or service.

But, there’s a tough reality to starting businesses:  more of them fail than succeed.  In fact, most businesses fail.  They fail because it’s hard to build a successful company.  There are always powerful forces working against you – e.g., competition, regulation, access to capital, poor execution, poor timing, bad luck.  Sometimes it turns out that your idea just won’t work.

And yet, here’s the thing:  trying to solve all the problems that a business faces is what’s fun for me, particularly when I’m doing it shoulder-to-shoulder with people who share my passion for building a successful enterprise.

Which brings me to the topic of unions.

There can be no doubt that historically, unions served an important purpose, balancing power between ownership and labor.  Indeed, the early days of capitalism were a bumpy ride, and the relationship between ownership and labor was often out of whack in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  And yet, 2017 looks a lot different than 1917.

But, I’m neither a historian nor an economist.  I’m an entrepreneur, so I’m not going to wax on about the historical imperative of unions and why they do or don’t serve a role in our modern economy.  I will, however, tell you what I know, and I know about starting and growing businesses.  I know that businesses constantly face a barrage of obstacles to survival – never mind success – and, in the face of that, everyone at the company needs to be pulling together or that company won’t make it.  I know that keeping a company growing and thriving requires focus and tireless effort by everyone.  Indeed, in my opinion, the essential esprit de corps that every successful company needs can’t exist when employees and ownership see themselves as being on opposite ends of a seesaw.  Everyone at a company – owners and employees alike – need to be sitting on the same end of the seesaw because the world is sitting on the other end.

I believe unions promote a corrosive us-against-them dynamic that destroys the esprit de corps businesses need to succeed.  And that corrosive dynamic makes no sense in my mind where an entrepreneur is staking his capital on a business that is providing jobs and promoting innovation.

That’s why the type of company that interests me is one where ownership and the employees are truly in it together, without interference from a third-party union that has its own agenda and priorities.  I’m not interested in any agenda at any company I start, other than working together to deliver something exceptional to consumers and doing it as everyone pulls shoulder-to-shoulder tackling whatever the marketplace throws at us.

It is my observation that unions exert efforts that tend to destroy the Free Enterprise system.

The Minimum Wage Fallacy

Image of Money being placed in a wallet

Do you remember your first job?

Some rode newspaper routes. Others worked as short order cooks, bagged groceries or manned cash registers. If you were lucky you served as a lifeguard over the summer; the less fortunate among us might have done hard labor down on the farm or over at a construction site.

No matter what you did, there was a certain satisfaction to be gained when the paycheck rolled in from a hard week’s work. Of course, the money was secondary to what it represented: You earned something for your efforts.

Sure, having a few bucks for a movie or milkshake was great. But you could not put a price on the skills and responsibilities you developed. Showing up at a job on time, taking orders, volunteering to help your coworkers, putting the customer first, and always hustling would prove useful no matter what industry you ended up in.

And beyond these basic skills, that first job gave you a sense of purpose, dignity and pride.

When we hear politicians and pundits talk about minimum wage jobs today, it seems many of these folks forgot about these experiences. Or perhaps they never had them.

The chattering class narrative goes something like this: “People working minimum wage jobs cannot put food on the table for their families. Therefore, we must raise the minimum wage.”

Let’s put aside the economics and politics of the matter for a second.

Framing the issue as the chattering class does illustrate a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of minimum wage jobs.

Some basic questions about the minimum wage shed light on this.

How old are most people working minimum wage jobs?

According to the Bureau of Labor Services’ (BLS) most recent report on the minimum wage, based on data from 2015: “Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the federal minimum wage or less.”

What kind of jobs do minimum wage earners hold?

The BLS report states: “Almost two-thirds of workers earning the minimum wage or less in 2015 were employed in service occupations, mostly in food preparation and serving related jobs.”

In other words, these are basic jobs like the ones we held when we were kids.

Do most minimum wage earners support families?

In 2015, 931,000 of the 2.6 million Americans ages 16 or older earning minimum wage or less – or approximately 36% of all such workers – were either married with a spouse present, or had a marital status of “other.”[i]Thus, the vast majority did not consist of families.

How many workers earn minimum wage or less relative to the total size of the American workforce?

The 2.6 million Americans ages 16 or older earning the federal minimum wage or less in 2015 represented 3.3% of the 78.2 million such workers paid at hourly rates. Since 58.5% of all workers are paid at hourly rates, that means that just under 2.0% earned the federal minimum wage or less.

So the minimum wage mainly impacts young, low-skilled workers, who have not started families, representing a fraction of the U.S. workforce.

Does that square with the critiques that start from the premise that the minimum wage must be high enough to support a family?

Clearly the answer is “no.” Most of the Americans impacted by the minimum wage are too young to have started a family, or otherwise not ready to do so.

Of those who do have a family to support, which represents a fraction of a fraction of the American labor force, some are likely to be early in their careers, seeking out lower-paying opportunities as a springboard to better ones.

That is of course the real purpose of minimum wage work: To build one’s resume, break into an industry and learn valuable skills. The small amount paid out in wages does not account for the total value of the job – the education, the experience and the contacts. These are all essential elements towards building a career – and fast transitioning out of a minimum wage job towards more challenging and rewarding opportunities.

There is another thing that is missed in this minimum wage conversation.

Calls to raise the minimum wage significantly deprive America’s youth of an opportunity that we once had – to work as kids – that served us well in life.

As basic economics tells us, the higher the minimum wage above what the market will bear, the lower the quantity of minimum wage jobs there will be. If you are in the restaurant business and you can only afford to hire a limited amount of workers because of the increased cost, chances are you are going to hire the more experienced worker rather than the high school kid. You will not want to waste time and money on training.

The minimum wage narratives we so often hear are not only inaccurate, but they can lead to policies detrimental to our children and grandchildren.

We must put them in their proper context as one piece – a critical steppingstone — in the great puzzle that is the American labor force.

Pride and Reassurance

Photo of Joe Ricketts and family

I’ve written before on this blog about  how Marlene and I raised our children not only to be self-reliant and hard-working, but also to believe in the importance of public service. So it shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone how proud I am that President-elect Trump has asked my son Todd Ricketts to serve in his administration as Deputy Secretary of Commerce.

As far as I am concerned, there is no challenge facing our great nation more pressing than the need to get our economy back on track. The Obama legacy of higher taxes and government interference has been leading us down an unsustainable path that if unchecked would have led to disaster, stifling the engines of economic opportunity and further crippling the middle class. The fact that Mr. Trump has called on Todd to help him reverse this unacceptable drift is not only a source of great pride to me but also a reassurance that the country may once again be headed in the right direction.

Why I’m Supporting Future45

Image of Trump Pence Logo

You might have read that my wife and I are supporting Future45 in its opposition to Secretary Clinton’s presidential campaign.  I didn’t make this decision quickly or lightly.  In fact, it’s no secret that I’ve had my concerns about Mr. Trump.

But there’s a stark reality that I can’t ignore: our country is headed down an unsustainable path that is eroding future opportunity.  The people walking us down this path have lost sight of the fact that it is the free enterprise system that has produced the opportunity, jobs, and innovation that have made the United States the greatest country in the world.  Higher taxes and government orchestrated wealth distribution is a shortsighted and unsustainable strategy. New businesses started by entrepreneurs drive economic expansion, and economic expansion raises the standard of living for everyone in a lasting and meaningful way.

I truly believe that four more years of the Obama-Clinton economic policies will further cripple our economy and the middle class. So while I had my differences with Mr. Trump in the primary, I believe that he and Mike Pence represent a better way forward, especially when teamed with Speaker Ryan and Senator McConnell.

For me, this election comes down to a binary choice between extending the failed Obama-Clinton economic policies and believing that Messrs. Trump and Pence bring fresh thinking to how we can reignite the engines of economic opportunity.  Given that choice, I’m supporting the Trump-Pence ticket as well as other leaders who will advance pragmatic, positive financial policies to promote our future prosperity.