contact us

Use the form on the right to contact us.

You can edit the text in this area, and change where the contact form on the right submits to, by entering edit mode using the modes on the bottom right.

5887 Glenridge Drive, Suite 250
Atlanta, Georgia, 30328
USA

(770) 330-9172

news-ny2.jpg

Newsroom

Cash Use Rises As Households Struggle To Cope With High Inflation

Mark Ellis

Authored by Bryan Jung via The Epoch Times,

Cash payments have made a comeback as households struggle to cope with high inflation, according to a new study.

After decades of falling cash use, the impact of the rapid inflation growth has been reversing the trend toward digital.

Credit Karma and The Harris Poll conducted a survey last month, which showed that 53 percent of adults in the United States and 46 percent in the United Kingdom are more likely to use cash than a year ago, reported Bloomberg.

Individuals preferring cash rose 19 and 4 percentage points, respectively, over those who did not use it more.

Roughly three in five cash users in both countries said using physical money makes them spend less.

The change in preferences towards cash over digital is also a reaction to the growing dominance of the latter, such as Apple Pay to Venmo to tappable credit cards, which some consumers say make it too easy to spend through their budget.

Over two-thirds of the 3,171 survey respondents admit that digital payment methods made them spend more than intended.

Cash Use Rises Among Young

High inflation rates have made people more self-conscious about what they spend daily, especially in the U.K., where price gains remain above 10 percent.

“As the world is getting back to normal after the pandemic and prices are going up significantly, we see cash as being one of the most enduring ways of managing money,” said Courtney Alev, an associate director of product management at Credit Karma.

“It really transcends generations and financial situations.”

The surge in cash use was especially pronounced among younger generations, such as Millennials and Gen Z, the survey found.

Younger consumers facing hard times are following the trend towards “cash-stuffing” by watching TikTok videos, that teach people how to separate their cash into different envelopes to use for different expenses, much like their grandparents or great-grandparents might have done during the Great Depression.

Consumers are also utilizing social media venues like Facebook to avoid businesses that do not accept cash.

Natalie Ceeney, chairwoman of Cash Access UK, told Bloomberg, “a lot of the theory on payments has been to remove friction,” and that “actually, a lot of people want friction back.”

Cash Access’s mission is to promote easier access to cash following legislation to stem its decline.

A woman holds British pound banknotes in this illustration taken on May 30, 2022. (Dado Ruvic/Reuters)

Ceeney said that studies found a large increase in sales when businesses in personal contact with consumers, such as the sports industry, switch to contactless payments.

“One of the reasons is people are more likely to just tap and buy things without thinking, ‘Gosh, that’s a lot of money.’”

Some fintech companies are trying to assist struggling consumers by introducing features that help with setting limits on everyday spending, reported Bloomberg.

Digital Currency Proposed

The survey findings suggest that the recovery in payments in cash after pandemic lows might not be temporary, as studies by the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England seem to confirm.

The BOE noted in October that it had seen a “sustained, if partial, recovery in cash use” post-pandemic and that banknotes in circulation have risen close to a historic high.

The U.K. bank, Nationwide Building Society, reported in January that more than 30.2 million withdrawals were made from its ATMs last year, a 19 percent jump from 2021, likely due to the rising cost of living.

The British central bank said that the use of paper currency and coins are especially useful for lower-income households that are struggling to deal with inflated costs, ranging from food to rent payments.

Meanwhile, central banks worldwide, including the BOE, are pushing ahead with plans to introduce digital versions of their currencies, which is a very unpopular move among the public.

Privacy advocates worry about a loss of privacy and the potential for government surveillance if digital currencies become mandatory.

The Fed itself published a paper outlining the benefits of a digital dollar, but officials say there will be no “Fedcoin” without any action by Congress.

The continuous rise in cash use may depend on how the central banks will manage to tame stubbornly high inflation rates in the coming months.

Mayor Adams Calls out Worst Truck Idling Offenders, Announces That Loomis Will Electrify Fleet of Trucks

Mark Ellis

New York Times

April 25, 2023

Amazon Has Paid More Than $1 Million to Satisfy Outstanding Violations

NEW YORK –­ New York City Mayor Eric Adams, Chief Climate Officer and New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Commissioner Rohit T. Aggarwala, and New York City Corporation Counsel Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix today highlighted the 10 companies that are the worst truck idling offenders in the city. After receiving 420 complaints as a result of the Citizens Air Complaint Program, one of those companies, Loomis — an armored car company — has agreed to fully electrify its fleet by 2025. Since its inception, the Citizens Air Complaint Program has seen a 440-percent increase in submissions and is on track for 90,000 complaints in 2023, marking its biggest year ever. The city also announced that Amazon, the second-worst offender, has already paid more than $1 million to settle outstanding violations issued to the company and its affiliates.

“Today, we’re making two things clear: If companies do the right thing and electrify their fleets, we’ll have their backs. And if companies don’t, while they idle and continue to expose our children to asthma-causing pollution, we’ll hold them accountable,” said Mayor Adams. “New Yorkers deserve clear streets and clean air, and the Citizens Air Complaint Program is helping us deliver.”

“Every vehicle idling on our streets is pouring pollution into our atmosphere and our airways, and we won’t allow that to continue,” said Deputy Mayor for Operations Meera Joshi. “The companies behind this public health hazard have a choice: They can do the right thing and electrify their fleets, like Loomis is, or we’ll make them pay for the damage they’re causing.”

“DEP will not stand ‘idly’ by while these companies allow their fleet vehicles to ruin New York City’s air quality and fill the lungs of our residents with harmful pollution. These companies have demonstrated a blatant disregard for the law and public health, and that is why DEP is working with the City Council to strengthen our idling laws and improve the Citizens Air Complaint Program,” said Chief Climate Officer and DEP Commissioner Aggarwala. “I want to thank New Yorkers for their vigilance in protecting the environment and providing us with the video evidence needed to levy penalties against these top ten offenders.”

“The city takes seriously its obligation to combat excessive engine idling,” said Corporation Counsel Hinds-Radix. “The city will continue to pursue collection on the large number of outstanding, unpaid violations to provide a disincentive to the continued problem of excessive idling on our streets.”

“Loomis is committed to be the industry leader in reducing our carbon footprint and having the most efficient transportation network possible. Reducing CO2 emissions from our vehicles through the investment in electric vehicles is a major component of our plan,” said Patrick Otero, chief financial officer,Loomis. “We look forward to our partnership with New York City as we invest in our fleet and continue our rollout of zero-emission electric vehicles in the city. Loomis Armored US will be completely emission-free in New York City by the end of 2025.”

Loomis does not turn off their vehicles during their routes due to security concerns. As a result of Loomis’s commitment to fully electrify their fleet by 2025, and continued demonstrations of progress towards that goal, the city will issue a variance for idling penalties against Loomis. Loomis will purchase six electric vehicles a year over the next three years. Currently, two vehicles in the Loomis fleet are already electrified. Loomis has already presented DEP a purchase order from February for six vehicles for 2023. This pledge aligns Loomis with the city’s climate goals of reducing idling pollution and improving air quality, and it is expected to inspire other companies to take necessary steps toward fleet electrification. DEP will be reviewing Loomis’ progress at a six-month interval to ensure compliance with the variance. If Loomis fails to show sufficient progress, DEP can revoke the variance. During the next two years, Loomis will also determine if there are any issues that could preclude the purchase of the additional vehicles, such as the inability to receive necessary permits to install adequate chargers for their electrified fleet.

TOP TEN IDLING OFFENDERS

Company NameTotal Summonses (since program inception)

  • LabQ Clinical Diagnostics LLC 3,288

  • Amazon 2,964

  • Con Ed2,814

  • Verizon 2,813

  • Merchants Automotive Group 2,486

  • Brink's Incorporated 1,020

  • Spectrum/Charter 1,011

  • Garda CL 598

  • Loomis 420

  • Fed Ex 390

Amazon has paid a total of $1,014,387 to satisfy 764 outstanding engine idling violations issued to the company and affiliated entities. As of March 17, 2023, Amazon had an additional 1,640 summonses awaiting adjudication, with the company potentially facing a minimum of an additional $691,010 in penalties. The remaining summonses are in various stages of process. The enormous number of summonses that Amazon continues to amass indicates that Amazon’s violation of the city’s engine idling prohibitions continues unabated. 

Other top violators include Ryder Truck Rental, Penske Truck Rental, EZ Rental, National Grid, Union Beer Distributors, EAN Holdings (parent company of Enterprise Rent-A-Car, National Car Rental, and Alamo Rent a Car), and United Parcel Service (UPS).

About the Citizens Air Complaint Program

The Citizens Air Complaint Program allows individuals who witness illegal truck idling to file a complaint online with DEP. Participants upload three-minute videos of idling trucks and, following further investigation, DEP may issue a summons based on these reports. If DEP does not issue a summons, the citizen reporting the violation may issue a summons. If the city is successful in collecting on citizen-reported violations, the citizen reporting the violation is entitled to a share of the amount recovered. Penalties imposed are $350 to $1,000 for a first violation, $440 to $1,500 for a second violation, and $600 to $2,000 for a third or any subsequent violations. DEP, the New York City Police Department, the New York City Department of Parks & Recreation, and the New York City Department of Sanitation all have authority to issue summonses for violation of the excessive idling provisions.

Since its inception, the Citizens Air Complaint Program has produced a significant spike in the number of complaints being filed. DEP received 9,070 complaints in 2019, 9,569 in 2020, 12,267 in 2021, and 48,979 complaints in 2022 — a 440-percent increase from when the program began. Just this year, DEP received 7,428 complaints in January, 7,304 in February, and 8,431 in March — putting the program on a trajectory for more than 90,000 complaints in 2023.

DEP has met this growth in several ways: Utilizing artificial intelligence technology to accelerate review of submitted videos and identification of registered vehicle owners; assigning more staff to the program; establishing a dedicated email address where citizens can submit questions and receive assistance in making their submissions; and clarifying the requirements for making submissions on the DEP website.

It is illegal to idle for longer than three minutes on a New York City street or for more than one minute while next to a city school. There are exemptions for emergency vehicles; certain vehicles that operate loading, unloading, or processing devices; and school buses and other buses when the temperature is below 40 degrees Fahrenheit. Idling emissions from gasoline and diesel motor vehicle engines have health-related impacts, contributing to asthma and respiratory, cardiovascular, and other health-related harms.

###

Is Switzerland About To Become First Country To Outlaw A Cashless Society?

Mark Ellis

BY TYLER DURDEN

2/18/2023

Authored by Nick Corbishley via NakedCapitalism.com,

As in neighboring Germany and Austria, cash is still king in Switzerland albeit a much diminished one. But the Swiss will soon have the chance to vote on whether to preserve notes and coins indefinitely.  

This is a rare positive news story that, perhaps unsurprisingly, has received next to no attention beyond Swiss borders. As far as I can tell, none of the legacy media in the US, UK, France, Germany or Spain have even bothered to cover the story. Indeed, it only registered on my radar a couple of days ago, over a week after the story initially broke, because an acquaintance of mine with family in Switzerland told me about it.

So, here’s the basic thrust of the story: At the beginning of last week, a Swiss pressure group with libertarian leanings called the Swiss Freedom Movement (FBS) announced it had collected enough signatures (111,000) to trigger a national vote on preserving cash for posterity. If passed, the initiative would require the federal government to ensure that coins and banknotes are always available in sufficient quantities. What’s more, any attempt to replace the Swiss Franc with another currency — quite possibly a reference to a central bank digital currency — would also have to be put to popular vote.

From Reuters:

Swiss citizens will get the chance to try to ensure their economy never becomes cashless, a pressure group said, after collecting enough signatures on Monday to trigger a popular vote on the issue.

The Free Switzerland Movement (FBS) says cash is playing a shrinking role in many economies, as electronic payments become the default for transactions in increasingly digitised societies, making it easier for the state to monitor its citizens’ actions.

It wants a clause added to Switzerland’s currency law, which governs how the central bank and government manage the money supply, stipulating that a “sufficient quantity” of banknotes or coins must always remain in circulation…

Under Switzerland’s system of direct democracy, the proposal would become law if approved by voters, though government and parliament would decide how that law was implemented.

FBS says cash is playing a diminishing role in many economies, including Switzerland, as digital payment methods come to the fore, making it easier for the State and central bank to track citizens’ behavior.

“It is clear that… getting rid of cash not only touches on issues of transparency, simplicity or security… but also carries a huge danger of totalitarian surveillance,” FBS president Richard Koller said on the group’s website.

Cash Still King in Switzerland, Albeit a Much Diminished One

As in neighboring Germany and Austria, cash is still king in Switzerland, though its role has shrunk significantly in recent years. According to the findings of the Swiss National Bank’s last survey of people’s spending habits, conducted in the autumn of 2020, 97% of Swiss citizens still keep cash in their wallets or at home to cover day-to-day expenses, which is significantly higher than most countries.

Forty percent of transactions were still being made using cash, which is also higher than many of Switzerland’s more cashless European neighbors, such as the UK (around 15%), Sweden (less than 10%) and Norway (3-4%, the lowest level of cash usage in the world). But that was down from around 70% three years earlier. What’s more, in terms of transaction value, the debit card recently overtook cash as the payment method with the highest share for non-recurring payments.

“The survey results show that, in terms of the number of payments made, cash continues to be the payment instrument most frequently used by the Swiss population,” Fritz Zurbrugge, then-vice-president of the Swiss National Bank’s governing board, said. “Compared with 2017, however, when the first payment methods survey was carried out, its usage share has dropped significantly. The coronavirus pandemic has given additional impetus to this shift from cash to non-cash payment methods”.

As readers are well aware, the pandemic rapidly intensified preexisting forces, mainly due to unfounded fears that cash could exacerbate the spread of COVID. Those fears were stoked and magnified by mainstream media and seized upon by certain retailers (such as the British supermarket Tesco) to justify encouraging all customers to avoid making cash payments. Even today, with most public health measures (at least of the non-pharmaceutical variety) consigned to the back burner, retailers in some countries continue to reject cash.

Three Unique Benefits of Cash, According to SNB

The date for the referendum on the cash initiative is yet to be set. A video report on the issue by Swiss Info emphasized that none of Switzerland’s main political parties support the initiative. It also underscored the FSB’s libertarian credentials while likening the cash initiative to the failed sovereign money initiative of June 2018, also known as Vollgeld, which sought to put an end to fractional reserve banking by including the creation of scriptural money in the legal mandate of the Swiss National Bank (SNB).

The SNB opposed that referendum. It is not yet clear what it makes of the cash initiative. Officially speaking, the central bank has no preference as to whether people pay with cash or digital alternatives. Freedom of choice is what matters. In a speech last November titled “Popular, But Under Pressure – Cash in the Digital Age”, Martin Schlegel, vice chairman of the SNB’s governing board, highlighted three key advantages cash has over digital payments:

  • First, cash makes managing your money clear and simple. It is easier to keep a firm grasp on your spending with notes and coins. You only have to open your wallet to see if you can afford additional expenses. It is with good reason that parents usually give children their pocket money in cash. By contrast, when you hold a plastic card up to a payment terminal, all you see is an amount that will be debited from your account at some point in the future.

  • Second, thanks to its simplicity of use, cash allows everyone to participate in the economy in social life. You do not need an account or a mobile phone to pay with coins and banknotes, nor do you need an affinity with digital technology.

  • Third, when paying by cash, you do not need to provide personal details such as your name or card number. With electronic payments, however, information about the persons making the payment and their payment behaviour is stored.

To ensure that people can continue to enjoy these benefits, Schlegel said the SNB must help preserve Switzerland’s cash infrastructure, which includes cash processing operators and commercial banks. It also means ensuring that shops continue to accept notes and coins for purchases.

But before we get ahead of ourselves, in Switzerland the outcome of a referendum does not automatically become law. As NC reader Irrational has kindly pointed out, there there are plenty of instances where the Swiss government, parliament, courts and official agencies have delayed and/or watered down undesirable legislation approved by the public.

Norway’s “Cash Crisis”

In some countries that are further along the road to a fully cashless existence, central banks and governments are already taking steps to preserve cash services. They include Norway. In a 2021 survey, the country’s central bank, Norges Bank, found that many of the country’s commercial banks were no longer accepting responsibility for providing cash services. This became a major exacerbating factor in Norway’s so-called “cash crisis” of May 2022, when card terminals across the nation went down for hours, leaving millions of people unable to transact.

That crisis underscored the ongoing importance of cash, which Schlegel describes as “particularly
crisis-proof”:

You can still pay with banknotes even when a card terminal has stopped working, when your mobile phone has no reception or when there is no electricity. Cash therefore serves as an important back-up in the event of local – or even widespread – interruptions to card or app payments.

Norway’s “cash crisis” appears to have galvanized both the government and Norges Bank to shore up cash services and the right to pay with banknotes and coins. In September 2022, the Ministry of Justice and Emergency Preparedness submitted a proposal for changes to the Act to strengthen the right to pay cash, with physical businesses being required to accept it and provisions in place to consider individual cases for other services.

But at the same time, most central banks, including Norges Bank and the SNB, are also exploring the possibility of launching their own central bank digital currencies, or CBDCs, in the not-too-distant future. While most central banks have repeatedly said that CBDCs, once launched, will co-exist alongside cash, there are no guarantees that that is what will happen, or under what sort of conditions.

In 2019, a blog post on the IMF’s website, titled “Cashing In: How to Make Negative Interest Rates Work,” based on an IMF staff study, posited setting a dual currency system in which cash would gradually depreciate against e-money, thus allowing the central bank to set “as negative an interest as necessary for countering a recession, without triggering any large-scale substitutions into cash.”

As the authors of the post themselves note, implementing such a system “would require important modifications of the financial and legal system” in each country. “In particular,” they go on, “fundamental questions pertaining to monetary law would have to be addressed and consistency with the IMF’s legal framework would need to be ensured. Also, it would require an enormous communication effort.”

The reason for that is that most people in most countries, if properly consulted, would presumably opt not to live in an economy where interest rates were significantly below zero and cash was, by design and law, constantly depreciating in value, even more so than it is today. They would probably also prefer not to live in a CBDC-based economy, where largely unaccountable central banks would have unprecedented surveillance and control powers over the population.

This is the problem: the public, whether in Nigeria, the UK, the US, Russia, Brazil or the Euro Area, are not being consulted. And this is why what is happening in Switzerland is potentially so important. At the very least there will be a public debate on the issue.

As FBS president Richard Koller notes, pushing through such guarantees for access to cash in the European Union would entail the “almost impossible” process of securing approval from all 27 member states. It would also imply a degree of public consultation, representation and accountability that simply does not exist at the EU-level.

If FBS’ referendum on preserving cash were to actually pass and the government were to actually enact the legislation without watering it down too much (two big “IFs”), Switzerland could become a potential “European standard-bearer for the defence of cash,” says Koller. And that, in this humble blogger’s opinion, would be a good thing.

Cash isn't dead

Mark Ellis

Feb. 7, 2023 | by Daniel Brown — Editor, Networld Media Group

Despite the rise of cashless and contactless payment in recent years, cash is far from dead, according to a panel of experts convened at December's Self Service Innovation Summit in Hollywood, Florida.

Dead or alive?

"Cash — is it dead?" asked moderator Elliot Maras, editor of Vending Times and Kiosk Marketplace.

"Based on what we see, cash is certainly not dead — far from it," moderator Vik Devjee, VP at CIMA Cash Handling America Inc., said, adding that he's not worried about an abrupt end in demand for the cash automation equipment his firm designs.

"What we are seeing though is that there is certainly a decline in the use of cash in certain segments, and I think that's really the key point," Devjee, whose company sponsored the session, continued. "I think the broader industry tries to generalize the demise of cash across the entire industry... but what we're seeing is that cash is alive and well" in segments like hospitality, gaming and the cannabis market.

"Cash is a big deal for us," Rocco DiNapoli, owner at Superior Amusements, a Milford, Connecticut based ATM and amusement machine operation, agreed. "It's not dead — it's shrinking." Though consumers still like to use cash, especially for tipping, DiNapoli argued the government would like to eliminate cash because it's harder to trace and control. Such efforts have already made it harder for amusement machine and ATM operators like himself to run their businesses.

War on cash

"No, cash is not dead at all." Bruce Renard, executive director for the National ATM Council, said. "We're in a war on cash — it's a global war. And there's an unholy alliance out there between companies that would benefit by cash going away, along with law enforcement and taxing authorities," Renard said, noting that his group has been lobbying Congress in support of the Payment Choice Act, which he said is designed to "preserve the option for consumers to pay with cash throughout the country."

Still, the push for a cashless society is strong.

"We saw this blatantly come to a head during COVID, when all kinds of misinformation was put out there about cash," Renard said, but despite these pressures, "there's more U.S. currency in circulation today than ever before in history."

"This idea that cash is going away is completely bogus," Renard continued. "What is happening is this: digital payments are becoming more and more prevalent, and so the percentage of cash transactions has dropped some... What we are in is a transition. We've got to figure out how to keep cash around, keep it strong, while still introducing digital payment methods — and have them coexist and be able to go from one to the other without it being a problem for consumers."

Still, it's not all dark; consumers saw the value of cash during COVID in a new way, and with massive consolidation in the banking industry, he said. Along with branches closing or being replaced by ATMs, there is a new opportunity. Banks are outsourcing ATM operations to entrepreneurs in a big way; while ATMs are popular with consumers, they far are more labor intensive than the average bank wants to deal with.

In addition, ATM transaction amounts have gone up since COVID.

On the regulatory front, there are initiatives at the federal, state and local level in favor of preserving cash, Renard said. People are realizing the value of cash in the face of world events, from American natural disasters to a rush for cash in Ukraine during the Russian invasion.

"Cash is a safety net for all of us. Cash is essential for over 5 million households in this country who only can deal with cash — they have no credit," Renard added, noting that cash has value as a national defense tool in case of electromagnetic pulse attacks or any other failure of electronic and Internet systems.

Cash vs. digital? Pro's and cons

"I think cash is limited," said Andrew "Andy" Kartiganer, president at Professional Vending Services Inc., a Deerfield Beach, Florida based convenience services operator. "Credit is about 75% of our sales, 25% is cash. It's a double-edged sword; there are different problems with both, but I would never eliminate cash. If your (card) reader goes down, that's the only way you're going to collect."

On the digital side, Kartiganer added that card readers have hidden costs and headaches, equipment failures or expiration (e.g., the sunsetting of 3G) and losing a percentage of each sale to credit card transaction fees. Also, there can be human errors in paperwork and configuration or even deposit routing, like when a machine sends transaction profits to the wrong business. Auditing is also much harder with these transactions thanks to sheer volume.

On the other hand, there are fees for processing and counting cash, Kartiganer said. The whole industry suffered during a coin shortage during the pandemic, which he said has now eased. Echoing other panelists, he said that it has become extremely difficult for him to deal with banks. Only one bank is currently willing to provide him the cash and coin services he needs.

Dishonest users using fake coins and other workarounds can cause further headaches on the cash side, Kartiganer said, but the sheer speed of evolving technology has caused unexpected headaches for cashless payments as well, such as the transition from swiping to contactless in digital payments.

Customers have reached out to him to complain about the machine not accepting their mobile payment app, for example, only to realize that it was a problem with the way they had the app set up on their phone. "It just takes time to learn the technology," he said.

Even so, he feels there is value in both digital and cash.

"As an entrepreneur, I want you to put money in, and I don't care how you do it. I don't care what it costs me to count it — but I want you to buy from my machine. I'll stick with both."

Innovation raises quality, lowers costs

Renard agreed with Kartiganer that technology innovation continues, most of which is beneficial.

"I think there's a little bit of an awakening in the market here in the U.S. in terms of cash recycling opportunities and things that may be more prevalent in other parts of the world that just haven't happened here, like smart safes," Renard said. Cash recycling equipment is becoming more common, and equipment is becoming more high-tech.

The market is also becoming more aware of (and seeking fixes for) the kinds of hardware, software and back-end headaches that Kartiganer mentioned.

But what kind of benchmarks can be used to gauge the technology's quality?

"The only benchmark we use … is the acceptance rate," Devjee said. "If we can accept more than 99% of the notes that are deposited into our devices, then I think we're in a good place." Notes are relatively easy, he said, but coins are much more difficult and cause over 75% of the problems in the industry by his estimate.

The technology's rising quality and price-efficiency is also lowering prices for operators and retailers, Devjee said, raising productivity.

"As technology has evolved, and as the cost of manufacturing technology has also come down, it's given us as a manufacturer the ability to build technology that does more for the same price," he said, citing cash recycling, which reduces operating costs for users who have increased interest in recycling. "We're certainly seeing a huge growth in demand for recycling technology now. The biggest benefit is productivity increase and the elimination of manual labor associated with dealing with that cash."

Recyclers are not a silver bullet for all operations, such as Kartiganer's. "It takes too much cash," Kartiganer said. "Most of our transactions are just buying a bottle of soda and to do a recycler you have to store a lot of cash in there in order to make the change. It's not worth it to us. Especially given the fact that only 25% of our sales come through cash. I don't think we're losing anybody because we can't take a $20 bill."

Digital transition inevitable

While the transition to mainly-digital payment seems to be inevitable in the long-term, the panel strongly urged industry, banks, consumers and government to keep cash alive as an option and to manage the transitional period carefully.

Renard said that governmental committees he has served on, including serving with the Atlanta Federal Reserve, has prioritized leaving no one behind during the transition towards digital currency.

Kartiganer noted that prioritizing easy auditing should be a priority as governmental and industry entities develop this transition. Also, having to keep pace with so many different payment technologies adds hassle and cost.

"A validator has a long life, when we're talking about sunset dates," Kartiganer offered as an example. "It might jam, it's a simple mechanism, but it has a long life — versus readers, which seem to change every few years. Just additional expense. I'd like to see that stop — I'd like to see one thing that interfaces with our machines and is universal."

Devjee added that from a manufacturing perspective, cash automation technology needs to align with strategies and initiatives like those that Renard's group supports in making cash more accessible.

"As a manufacturer it is our goal... to make the ability to pay in cash easier in any environment possible," he said, pointing to Manhattan's mandate requiring cash acceptance in retail environments. For ghost kitchens with kiosk ordering, this was a challenge, especially without human cashiers. Automating the cash payment at the kiosk was possible thanks to technology; thus, cash-based innovation is helping not only consumers but operators.

While the long term transition to a digital-dominated economy is inevitable, the transition period should be carefully designed to protect consumers, low-income citizens and small businesses, argued the panel, and cash is a common good that should never be fully eliminated. Towards this end, excellence and innovation in cash automation technology paves the way in operational excellence.


Money and Payments: The U.S. Dollar in the Age of Digital Transformation

Mark Ellis

This paper examines the pros and cons of a potential U.S. central bank digital currency, or CBDC, and is the first step in a discussion of whether and how a CBDC could improve the safe and efficient domestic payments system. Money and Payments: The U.S. Dollar in the Age of Digital Transformation (PDF) invites comment from the public. Importantly, the paper does not favor any policy outcome.

The paper summarizes the current state of the domestic payments system and discusses the different types of digital payment methods and assets that have emerged in recent years, including stablecoins and other cryptocurrencies. It concludes by examining the potential benefits and risks of a CBDC, and identifies specific policy considerations.

Consumers and businesses have long held and transferred money in digital form, via bank accounts, online transactions, or payment apps. The forms of money used in those transactions are liabilities of private entities, such as commercial banks. Conversely, a CBDC would be a liability of a central bank, like the Federal Reserve.

While a CBDC could provide a safe, digital payment option for households and businesses as the payments system continues to evolve, and may result in faster payment options between countries, there may also be downsides. They include how to ensure a CBDC would preserve monetary and financial stability as well as complement existing means of payment. Other key policy considerations include how to preserve the privacy of citizens and maintain the ability to combat illicit finance. The paper discusses these and other factors in more detail.


https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/money-and-payments-discussion-paper.htm

Getting Real About Real-Time Payments

Mark Ellis

By Pat Shea

https://www.atmmarketplace.com/articles/getting-real-about-real-time-payments/?utm_source=AMC&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EMNA&utm_content=2021-01-22

The promise of receiving payment within seconds is a reality now. Venmo your co-worker for your part of the lunch bill. Zelle your sister for the book she picked up for you. GooglePay your college student money to fly back home.

When we need or want money to be somewhere specific or to someone specific, we want to see it happen in real-time. How does real-time payments work for businesses such as banks when money needs to be moved to locations but are not typical offices due to the pandemic?

ATM Marketplace spoke with Jessica Cheney, vice president, product management and strategic solutions for Bottomline to learn more about how financial institutions are working with digital real-time payments.

Q: What do you believe is the future of real-time payments adoption in the U.S.?

A: The promise of receiving payments in seconds has been a long time coming in a very gradual crescendo—from PayPal's inception in 1998, to near real-time solutions like Venmo introduced in 2006 and now to faster payment rails introduced by The Clearing House in 2016.

The pandemic environment pushed most businesses in to a new reality - the need to move money and via locations that were not their typical, physical offices. Businesses that were beholden to doing check runs in-office faced having to convert to digital real-time payments that could be done anytime and anywhere. This behavioral change has ratcheted up interest in the efficiencies of real-time money movement. Necessity became the mother of invention once again. Use cases have evolved based on the unique work environments in which most of us are now employed. These are fueling the growth of real time payments, and will continue to do so.

These use cases have included banks themselves fulfilling PPP loan disbursements, companies offering on demand or daily payroll payouts, insurance claims payments and very large growth in all forms of contactless payments, where real time payment options work well.

TCH's RTP options also have added benefits such as billing features via payment requests, chat type communication features, and remittance information that accompanies the payment. Feature expectations and needs will further increase as real-time payments morph to a true 21st century payment method. Over the last 12 months, demand from banks to offer a real-time payments solution has increased exponentially and we have more and more banks every month interested in implementing real-time payment and payment request solutions.

Q: What are the tangible benefits of RTP?

Jessica Cheney, VP, Bottomline

A: Real-time payment solutions allow rich data to be included with speed and finality. Businesses are finding more and more use cases where real-time payments make a difference to their customers or employees.

Payroll is a great example where real-time payments are serving an increasingly 'gig economy'. Businesses can attract employees as real-time payments allow them to easily create daily payrolls where the employee's pay literally reaches them in seconds. Some in the food service industry are now using the ability to support a daily payroll as a recruitment tool. Many uses cases have been on the table from the beginning such as loan disbursements and insurance payouts. Now banks are finding uses cases from customers that they hadn't always thought about, such as the gambling industry's (online casinos and sport wagering) need for instant disbursements to winners.

Besides speed, businesses are finding they can send and receive remittance information that leads to easier reconciliation. The attractiveness of being able to send more information with a transaction, means needing less and less paper to go with that transaction. Sending and receiving messages about a particular payment is also creating stronger ties between businesses and their trading partners and suppliers by humanizing transactions. Since businesses don't all operate 9 to 5, they can transact at any hour of the day that suits their business model and operations. Other payment methods have constraints on availability.

TCH's Request for Payment has brought new focus to the value placed on the ability to send electronic simple invoices. Value comes in a number of ways. First, invoices are electronically created and sent. Second, payments that are received as a result of an electronic request for payment are automatically linked back to the request. Third, requests that are specifically tied to due dates can potentially improve a company's days sales outstanding. Finally, the request for payment and the associated payments can be supplemented with accompanying value-added electronic messages, such as the request for information and response, which can improve the payment reconciliation process.

Q: What makes the investment in RTP worthwhile for companies today?

A: 2020 was a year of disruption to the economy and the way businesses pay and get paid. The movement of money is the life blood of our economy. New behaviors are forming as there is more willingness on the part of customers to transact digitally and as interest in adopting new banking practices grows.

Real-time payments provide a great opportunity for banks to remain competitive as they've been anticipating disintermediation from an influx of players such as Walmart and other large retailers as well as other fintech companies wanting to open up their own payment exchanges. It's critical for banks to either be on the innovation spectrum or to fast followers who can keep up with the speed of change we're experiencing in the payment's arena. Real-time payments are more than just a shiny new toy. It delivers a 24 x 7 x 365 window for customers to do their business and for banks to be at the epicenter of customers' financial relationships with their customers and suppliers.

In our new reality, real time payment technology also provides an alternative to cash and credit card payments. Real time payments can be used instead of paper currency to fulfill simple daily purchases – many service providers now prefer this method of contactless payment. Real time payments are also an alternative to credit card transactions in times of economic uncertainty where some consumers are reluctant to rely on the use of credit cards for payments.

Q: What are the customer expectations surrounding RTP?

A: Payments are not just about sending money from point A to point B. Real-time payments removes the friction that we've seen in the constraints of other payment types.

Customers have many expectations. They want to know that a payment was received by the person they sent it to and when. Businesses also want enough information to efficiently reconcile payments. They want to be able to hold their cash as long as they can. They would like a way to converse about a particular payment and keep this information tightly coupled with the payment.

Consider millennials who currently are the largest generation in the workforce. Their expectations are what real-time payments can deliver on — immediacy, ability to conduct business any hour of the day, and with a communication channel incorporated between the payment parties. Millennials comprise a large entrepreneurial segment and are imagining new ways to do business. They require payment methods that support simplicity, transparency, and a user experience that rivals the simplicity of many of their phone apps.

Q: What are you seeing as a trend regarding demand for RTP?

A: Business demand for real time payments is trending up — consumer demand has been strong for several years now as evidenced by the growth of Venmo, Zelle, and recently the CashApp. Referencing Citizen's Bank's Real Time Payments Outlook survey again, 69% of their corporate respondents are on the path to adopting real time payments to meet their payments and billing needs and of those companies 81% are doing it within the next year. And banks of all sizes are now exploring how to support RTP in the immediate future.

Q: Why do people view the U.S. as lagging behind in RTP?

A: Other countries like the U.K., Australia, and Southeast Asia have adopted faster payments ahead of the U.S. Here are a few of the factors as to why that's the case:

  • The U.S. is still very check-centric. As real-time payments become a more ubiquitous offering, and as they include the ability to utilize aliases when sending to both consumer and businesses, real-time payments will make it easier for payment behaviors to change.

  • ACH and wire have been sufficient for a long time and many business processes are tied to working with these payment types. The addition of Same Day ACH in the US in 2016 was several years behind a similar concept in the UK of BACs Faster Payments ( 2008), but the implementation of Same Day ACH was overshadowed by the industry movement to focus on real time payments started by the Federal Reserve's Faster Payments Taskforce work in that same year.

  • The industry needed to build a totally new infrastructure and rails that weren't a faster horse (which is what many thought same day ACH was), but a sports car. An important element of this was the standardization of messages for sending and receiving these payments.

  • Banks have to make some fundamental changes in their operations to support payments that can be processed around the clock.

Q: What are the similarities between U.S. Same-Day ACH and "instant payments" used in Europe?

A: The two core differences between U.S. Same-Day ACH and the SEPA Instant Payments in Europe are the speed of the payment— U.S. Same-Day ACH payments are sent and received in the same day, but can still take hours to complete and are only available to be processed on business days. With "instant payments" the money is made available within 10 seconds on the account of the recipient, 24-hours a day, 365-days a year. And U.S. Same-Day ACH payments are domestic U.S. payments only, whereas SEPA Instant Payments are used cross boarder in several European Countries.

Q: What do you see as next steps for RTP in the U.S.?

A: We're very interested in the interoperability between payment solutions such as Zelle, Clearing House RTP Network, and the FedNow instant payment initiative. The industry has talked about the intense need for interoperability and its hope to have a collaborative spirit on the development of a truly ubiquitous real time payment system. We see this as a very positive way to capitalize on the best practices that will help meet and exceed the needs of our customers.

Another facet, currently in a nascent stage, is the promise of an end-to-end billing to payment solution. What customers desire is a data-rich service that provides more transparency than traditional bill payment offerings. Industry experts say that 60% of ACH payments in B2B are made without data connected to then which makes reconciliation hard. Over 4 million businesses in the U.S. need to bill. What we are seeing is payment networks giving a very critical eye on how to make the process easier, more efficient, and how to standardize it so it's easily adoptable.

Complex Systems Collide, Markets Crash

Mark Ellis

Authored by James Rickards via The Daily Reckoning,

At some point, systems flip from being complicated, which is a challenge to manage, to being complex. Complexity is more than a challenge because it opens the door to all kinds of unexpected crashes and events.

Their behavior cannot be reduced to their component parts. It’s as if they take on a life of their own.

Complexity theory has four main pillars.

  • The first is the diversity of actors. You’ve got to account for all of the actors in the marketplace. When you consider the size of global markets, that number is obviously vast.

  • The second pillar is interconnectedness. Today’s world is massively interconnected through the internet, through social media and other forms of communications technology.

  • The third pillar of complexity theory is interaction. Markets interact on a massive scale. Trillions of dollars of financial transactions occur every single day.

  • The fourth pillar, and this is the hardest for people to understand, is adaptive behavior. Adaptive behavior just means that your behavior affects my behavior and my behavior affects yours. That in turn affects someone else’s behavior, and so on.

If you look out the window and see people bundled up in heavy jackets, for example, you’re probably not going to go out in a T-shirt. 

Applied to capital markets, adaptive behavior is sometimes called herding.

Assume you have a room with 100 people. If two people suddenly sprinted out of the room, most of the others probably wouldn’t make much of it. But if half the people in the room suddenly ran outside, the other half will probably do the same thing.

They might not know why the first 50 people left, but the second half will just assume something major has happened. That could be a fire or a bomb threat or something along these lines.

The key is to determine the tipping point that compels people to act. Two people fleeing isn’t enough. 50 certainly is. But, maybe 20 people leaving could trigger the panic. Or maybe the number is 30, or 40. You just can’t be sure. But the point is, 20 people out of 100 could trigger a chain reaction.

And that’s how easily a total collapse of the capital markets can be triggered.

Understanding the four main pillars of complexity gives you a window into the inner workings of markets in a way the Fed’s antiquated equilibrium models can’t. They let you see the world with better eyes.

People assume that if you had perfect knowledge of the economy, which nobody does, that you could conceivably plan an economy. You’d have all the information you needed to determine what should be produced and in what number.

But complexity theory says that even if you had that perfect knowledge, you still couldn’t predict financial and economic events. They can come seemingly out of nowhere.

For example, it was bright and sunny one day out in the eastern Atlantic in 2005. Then it suddenly got cloudy. The winds began to pick up. Then a hurricane formed. That hurricane went on to wipe out New Orleans a short time later.

I’m talking about Hurricane Katrina. You never could have predicted New Orleans would be struck on that bright sunny day. You could look back and track it afterwards. It would seem rational in hindsight. But on that sunny day in the eastern Atlantic, there was simply no way of predicting that New Orleans was going to be devastated.

Any number of variables could have diverted the storm at some point along the way. And they cannot be known in advance, no matter how much information you have initially.

Another example is the Fukushima nuclear incident in Japan a few years back. You had a number of complex systems coming together at once to produce a disaster.

An underwater earthquake triggered a tsunami that just happened to wash up on a nuclear power plant. Each one of these are highly complex systems — plate tectonics, hydrodynamics and the nuclear plant itself.

There was no way traditional models could have predicted when or where the tectonic plates were going to slip. Therefore, they couldn’t tell you where the tsunami was heading.

And the same applies to financial panics. They seem to come out of nowhere. Traditional forecasting models have no way of detecting them. But complexity theory allows for them.

I make the point that a snowflake can cause an avalanche. But of course not every snowflake does. Most snowflakes fall harmlessly, except that they make the ultimate avalanche worse because they’re building up the snowpack. And when one of them hits the wrong way, it could spin out of control.

The way to think about it is that the triggering snowflake might not look much different from the harmless snowflake that preceded it. It’s just that it hit the system at the wrong time, at the wrong place.

Only the exact time and the specific snowflake that starts the avalanche remain to be seen. This kind of systemic analysis is the primary tool I use to keep investors ahead of the catastrophe curve.

The system is getting more and more unstable, and it might not take that much to trigger the avalanche.

To switch metaphors, it’s like the straw that breaks the camel’s back. You can’t tell in advance which straw will trigger the collapse. It only becomes obvious afterwards. But that doesn’t mean you can’t have a good idea when the threat can no longer be ignored.

Let’s say I’ve got a 35-pound block of enriched uranium sitting in front of me that’s shaped like a big cube. That’s a complex system. There’s a lot going on behind the scenes. At the subatomic level, neutrons are firing off. But it’s not dangerous. You’d actually have to eat it to get sick.

But, now, I take the same 35 pounds, I shape part of it into a sphere, I take the rest of it and shape it into a bat. I put it in the tube, and I fire it together with high explosives, I kill 300,000 people. I just engineered an atomic bomb. It’s the same uranium, but under different conditions.

The point is, the same basic conditions arrayed in a different way, what physicists call self-organized criticality, can go critical, blow up, and destroy the world or destroy the financial system.

That dynamic, which is the way the world works, is not understood by central bankers. They don’t understand complexity theory. They do not see the critical state dynamics going on behind the scenes because they’re using obsolete equilibrium models.

In complexity theory and complex dynamics, you can go into the critical state. What look like unconnected distant events are actually indications and warnings of something much more dangerous to come.

So what happens when complex dynamic systems crash into each other? We’re seeing that right now.

We’re seeing two complex systems colliding into each other, the complex system of markets combined with the complex system of epidemiology.

The coronavirus spread is a complex dynamic system. It encompass virology, meteorology, migratory patterns, mass psychology, etc. Markets are highly complex, dynamic systems.

Financial professionals will use the word “contagion” to describe a financial panic. But that’s not just a metaphor. The same complexity that applies to disease epidemics also apply to financial markets. They follow the same principles.

And they’ve come together to create a panic that traditional modeling could not foresee.

The time scale of global financial contagion is not necessarily limited to days or weeks. These panics can play out over months and years. So could the effects of the coronavirus.

Just don’t expect the Fed to warn you.

Once hailed as unhackable, blockchains are now getting hacked.

Mark Ellis

More and more security holes are appearing in cryptocurrency and smart contract platforms, and some are fundamental to the way they were built.

Mike Orcutt, MS Tech February 19, 2019

Early last month, the security team at Coinbase noticed something strange going on in Ethereum Classic, one of the cryptocurrencies people can buy and sell using Coinbase’s popular exchange platform. Its blockchain, the history of all its transactions, was under attack.

A hacker had somehow gained control of more than half of the network’s computing power and was using it to rewrite the transaction history. That made it possible to spend the same cryptocurrency more than once—known as “double spends.” The attacker was spotted pulling this off to the tune of $1.1 million. Coinbase claims that no currency was actually stolen from any of its accounts. But a second popular exchange, Gate.io, has admitted it wasn’t so lucky, losing around $200,000 to the attacker (who, strangely, returned half of it days later).

Just a year ago, this nightmare scenario was mostly theoretical. But the so-called 51% attack against Ethereum Classic was just the latest in a series of recent attacks on blockchains that have heightened the stakes for the nascent industry.

In total, hackers have stolen nearly $2 billion worth of cryptocurrency since the beginning of 2017, mostly from exchanges, and that’s just what has been revealed publicly. These are not just opportunistic lone attackers, either. Sophisticated cybercrime organizations are now doing it too: analytics firm Chainalysis recently said that just two groups, both of which are apparently still active, may have stolen a combined $1 billion from exchanges.

We shouldn’t be surprised. Blockchains are particularly attractive to thieves because fraudulent transactions can’t be reversed as they often can be in the traditional financial system. Besides that, we’ve long known that just as blockchains have unique security features, they have unique vulnerabilities. Marketing slogans and headlines that called the technology “unhackable” were dead wrong.

That’s been understood, at least in theory, since Bitcoin emerged a decade ago. But in the past year, amidst a Cambrian explosion of new cryptocurrency projects, we’ve started to see what this means in practice—and what these inherent weaknesses could mean for the future of blockchains and digital assets.

How do you hack a blockchain?

Before we go any further, let’s get a few terms straight.

blockchain is a cryptographic database maintained by a network of computers, each of which stores a copy of the most up-to-date version. A blockchain protocol is a set of rules that dictate how the computers in the network, called nodes, should verify new transactions and add them to the database. In general, more than half the nodes have to agree that a transaction is valid for it to be verified. The protocol employs cryptography, game theory, and economics to create incentives for the nodes to work toward securing the network instead of attacking it for personal gain. If set up correctly, this system can make it extremely difficult and expensive to add false transactions but relatively easy to verify valid ones.

That’s what’s made the technology so appealing to many industries, beginning with finance. Soon-to-launch services from big-name institutions like Fidelity Investments and Intercontinental Exchange, the owner of the New York Stock Exchange, will start to enmesh blockchains in the existing financial system. Even central banks are now looking into using them for new digital forms of national currency.

But the more complex a blockchain system is, the more ways there are to make mistakes while setting it up. Earlier this month, the company in charge of Zcash—a cryptocurrency that uses extremely complicated math to let users transact in private—revealed that it had secretly fixed a “subtle cryptographic flaw” accidentally baked into the protocol. An attacker could have exploited it to make unlimited counterfeit Zcash. Fortunately, no one seems to have actually done that.

The protocol isn’t the only thing that has to be secure. To trade cryptocurrency on your own, or run a node, you have to run a software client, which can also contain vulnerabilities. In September, developers of Bitcoin’s main client, called Bitcoin Core, had to scramble to fix a bug (also in secret) that could have let attackers mint more bitcoins than the system is supposed to allow.

Still, most of the recent headline-grabbing hacks weren’t attacks on the blockchains themselves, but on exchanges, the websites where people can buy, trade, and hold cryptocurrencies. And many of those heists could be blamed on poor basic security practices. That changed in January with the 51% attack against Ethereum Classic.

The 51% rule

Susceptibility to 51% attacks is inherent to most cryptocurrencies. That’s because most are based on blockchains that use proof of work as their protocol for verifying transactions. In this process, also known as mining, nodes spend vast amounts of computing power to prove themselves trustworthy enough to add information about new transactions to the database. A miner who somehow gains control of a majority of the network's mining power can defraud other users by sending them payments and then creating an alternative version of the blockchain in which the payments never happened. This new version is called a fork. The attacker, who controls most of the mining power, can make the fork the authoritative version of the chain and proceed to spend the same cryptocurrency again.

For popular blockchains, attempting this sort of heist is likely to be extremely expensive. According to the website crypto51.com, renting enough mining power to attack Bitcoin would currently cost more than $260,000 per hour. But it gets much cheaper quickly as you move down the list of the more than 1,500 cryptocurrencies out there. Slumping coin prices make it even less expensive, since they cause miners to turn off their machines, leaving networks with less protection.

Toward the middle of 2018, attackers began springing 51% attacks on a series of relatively small, lightly traded coins including Verge, Monacoin, and Bitcoin Gold, stealing an estimated $20 million in total. In the fall, hackers stole around $100,000 using a series of attacks on a currency called Vertcoin. The hit against Ethereum Classic, which netted more than $1 million, was the first against a top-20 currency.

David Vorick, cofounder of the blockchain-based file storage platform Sia, predicts that 51% attacks will continue to grow in frequency and severity, and that exchanges will take the brunt of the damage caused by double-spends. One thing driving this trend, he says, has been the rise of so-called hashrate marketplaces, which attackers can use to rent computing power for attacks. “Exchanges will ultimately need to be much more restrictive when selecting which cryptocurrencies to support,” Vorick wrote after the Ethereum Classic hack.

A whole new can of worms bugs

Aside from 51% attacks, there is whole new level of blockchain security weaknesses whose implications researchers are just beginning to explore: smart-contract bugs. Coincidentally, Ethereum Classic—specifically, the story behind its origin—is a good starting point for understanding them, too.

smart contract is a computer program that runs on a blockchain network. It can be used to automate the movement of cryptocurrency according to prescribed rules and conditions. This has many potential uses, such as facilitating real legal contracts or complicated financial transactions. Another use—the case of interest here—is to create a voting mechanism by which all the investors in a venture capital fund can collectively decide how to allocate the money.

Just such a fund, called the Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO), was set up in 2016 using the blockchain system called Ethereum. Shortly thereafter, an attacker stole more than $60 million worth of cryptocurrency by exploiting an unforeseen flaw in a smart contract that governed the DAO. In essence, the flaw allowed the hacker to keep requesting money from accounts without the system registering that the money had already been withdrawn.

As the hack illustrated, a bug in a live smart contract can create a unique sort of emergency. In traditional software, a bug can be fixed with a patch. In the blockchain world, it’s not so simple. Because transactions on a blockchain cannot be undone, deploying a smart contract is a bit like launching a rocket, says Petar Tsankov, a research scientist at ETH Zurich and cofounder of a smart-contract security startup called ChainSecurity. “The software cannot make a mistake.”

There are fixes, of a sort. Though they can’t be patched, some contracts can be “upgraded” by deploying additional smart contracts to interact with them. Developers can also build centralized kill switches into a network to stop all activity once a hack is detected. But for users whose money has already been stolen, it will be too late.

The only way to retrieve the money is, effectively, to rewrite history—to go back to the point on the blockchain before the attack happened, create a fork to a new blockchain, and have everyone on the network agree to use that one instead. That’s what Ethereum’s developers chose to do. Most, but not all, of the community switched to the new chain, which we now know as Ethereum. A smaller group of holdouts stuck with the original chain, which became Ethereum Classic.

Last month, Tsankov’s team at ChainSecurity saved Ethereum from a possible repeat of the DAO catastrophe. Just a day before a major planned software upgrade, the company told Ethereum’s lead developers that it would have the unintended consequence of leaving some contracts on the blockchain newly vulnerable to the same kind of bug that led to the DAO hack. The developers promptly postponed the upgrade and will give it another go later this month.

Nevertheless, hundreds of valuable Ethereum smart contracts were already vulnerable to this so-called reentrancy bug, according to Victor Fang, cofounder and CEO of blockchain security firm AnChain.ai. Tens of thousands of contracts may contain some other kind of vulnerability, according to research conducted last year. And the very nature of public blockchains means that if a smart-contract bug exists, hackers will find it, since the source code is often visible on the blockchain. “This is very different than traditional cybersecurity,” says Fang, who previously worked for the cybersecurity firm FireEye.

Buggy contracts, especially those holding thousands or millions of dollars, have attracted hackers just as advanced as the kind who attack banks or governments. In August, AnChain identified five Ethereum addresses behind an extremely sophisticated attack that exploited a contract flaw in a popular gambling game to steal $4 million.

Can the hackers be defeated?

AnChain.ai is one of several recent startups created to address the blockchain hacking threat. It uses artificial intelligence to monitor transactions and detect suspicious activity, and it can scan smart-contract code for known vulnerabilities.

Other companies, including Tsankov’s ChainSecurity, are developing auditing services based on an established computer science technique called formal verification. The goal is to prove mathematically that a contract’s code will actually do what its creators intended. These auditing tools, which have begun to emerge in the past year or so, have allowed smart-contract creators to eliminate many of the bugs that had been “low-hanging fruit,” says Tsankov. But the process can be expensive and time consuming.

It may also be possible to use additional smart contracts to set up blockchain-based “bug bounties.” These would encourage people to report flaws in return for a cryptocurrency reward, says Philip Daian, a researcher at Cornell University’s Initiative for Cryptocurrencies and Contracts.

But making sure code is clean will only go so far. A blockchain, after all, is a complex economic system that depends on the unpredictable behavior of humans, and people will always be angling for new ways to game it. Daian and his colleagues have shown how attackers have already figured out how to profit by gaming popular Ethereum smart contracts, for instance.

In short, while blockchain technology has been long touted for its security, under certain conditions it can  be quite vulnerable. Sometimes shoddy execution can be blamed, or unintentional software bugs. Other times it’s more of a gray area—the complicated result of interactions between the code, the economics of the blockchain, and human greed. That’s been known in theory since the technology’s beginning. Now that so many blockchains are out in the world, we are learning what it actually means—often the hard way.

The Future Is Here: The Potential of Blockchain Technology

Mark Ellis

By John Campbell, January 23, 2018

For all the investor hype around Bitcoin, which became an international sensation in the second half of 2017, the cryptocurrency still lacks the fundamental attributes of money and is behaving more like a speculative commodity. Ultimately, Bitcoin’s star could fade as rival cryptocurrencies overcome its inherent technical flaws and governments continue to crack-down on its use.

Blockchain technology, which is beginning to gain significant attention, possesses far more future potential than Bitcoin. There is just one snag, which has heretofore been largely ignored: energy use.

Bitcoin Basics

Created in 2009, Bitcoin is the first cryptocurrency released. For much of its existence, it was consigned to the periphery of finance, failing to generate much interest. However, in the latter half of 2017, Bitcoin mania descended upon investors who began piling into the cryptocurrency, with prices rising exponentially. To many, it was reminiscent of Dutch ‘tulip mania’ from the 1600s.

Bitcoin, unlike typical notes and coins, is not backed by a single central bank.

It was created by an unidentified developer who goes by the name of Satoshi Nakamoto; lending a certain mystique to the cryptocurrency.

Its developer purportedly developed Bitcoin as an alternative to national currencies because he was sceptical of the vast QE programmes national central banks undertook following the 2008 financial crisis.

Bitcoin is not alone as a cryptocurrency, although it garners most of the attention and has the largest market capitalisation. There are over 1,300 different types of cryptocurrencies and new ones spring up as creators try to overcome the technical challenges faced by rivals.

Blockchain

Bitcoin uses “blockchain technology.” This phrase has become synonymous with Bitcoin – in reality, most cryptocurrencies use blockchain technology. The blockchain, as it is commonly known, is a continuously updated, distributed digital ledger. It permanently records all transactions and, by design, it is practically unalterable.

Most importantly, it provides both parties with a transaction with the assurance provided by an unbiased third party, without the expense of intermediation. The word ‘block’ comes from the fact that transactions are bundled together to form a new ‘block’. Meanwhile, when it is created, it is combined like a ‘chain’ to all previous blocks.

The blockchain ledger replicates all historical transactions across millions of computers. This prevents a single user from tampering with history, as all records across the computers have to be in accordance with one another. Information can only be added to the blockchain, not altered. Furthermore, since transactions take place on the blockchain – which is public – a transaction of an item can be verified as unique. Finally, because the transaction does not require a third party (such as a bank) to adjudicate it, blockchain technology is decentralised.

Bitcoin transactions are ‘verified’ through a global computer network that performs the computational heavy lifting required to facilitate secure transactions. Verification takes place through the process of cryptography – mathematical code. Computers are required to provide a unique solution to a given challenge. This verification solves the double-spending problem. It prevents a user copying coins so as to appear to pay another user. Because this verification process is extremely energy-intensive, the bitcoin ‘miner,’ as they are known, who successfully solves the problem is rewarded with bitcoins for their efforts.

Moreover, computers are competing with one other to solve the challenge. There is an upper limit of 21 million bitcoins that can be mined, and to date, 16.75 million have been mined. Therefore, individuals who verify the transactions will no longer receive a reward as the upper supply limit is reached.

The expectation is that once the supply of bitcoins has been exhausted, transaction fees will be introduced in order to maintain an incentive for ‘miners’ to continue to verify transactions. One must remember that the process of verifying transactions is extremely energy intensive and ‘miners’ therefore require a reward for their efforts. However, the introduction of transaction fees is likely to discourage users, as the transaction costs fall on them. This provides an opportunity for rival coins with a superior technological concept that have virtually zero transaction costs.

The Problem of Power

The process of cryptography is extremely energy-intensive. Racks of powerful computer graphics cards are required to process advanced calculations to verify transactions. Some estimate the annual total power consumption from the ‘mining’ industry to be greater than that of Ireland. What is more, most of the Bitcoin activity takes place in China, which uses mostly coal-fired plants. In short, Bitcoin transactions are ‘killing the planet’.

So far, a crisis has been averted as ‘mining’ equipment has become vastly more efficient since 2009. But it is unlikely that such gains are repeatable indefinitely. There is also the question of what happens if cryptocurrencies eventually become widely adopted. While there is active research in the field, a breakthrough has yet to materialise. Energy consumption, therefore, remains a significant obstacle to worldwide adoption.

The Potential of Blockchain Technology

If Bitcoin, through the use of the blockchain, is designed to retire burdensome middlemen, what other bureaucratic authorities can blockchain technology help render irrelevant?

There is a lot of potential behind the use of smart contracts. Smart contracts are agreements that can be understood and executed using machines. This renders a third-party arbitrator irrelevant. Moreover, the smart contract can also perform due diligence duties. An example of a smart contract is a car lease programmed to prevent an individual from driving their car if they are seriously behind on their payments.

It is worth stressing that these concepts are in their infancy and are a topic of discussion rather than an inevitable outcome. In the case of the smart car contract, there is the issue of an individual, behind on their payments, being remotely blocked from driving their car in the case of an emergency. This would be unacceptable. Such inflexibility leaves complex problems that will require careful thought in order to have smart contracts that factor in the human quality of flexibility.

In a more positive example, blockchain technology could be used to create ‘coloured’ coins whereby certain properties are assigned to a currency. One such property would be the possibility to view previous transactions to see generally where the coin has been. This could be used to spot money from criminals or from sanctioned countries. Therefore, it would be possible for a user to block transactions from criminal individuals.

Finally, blockchain could prove to be a controversial technology, as all information is stored forever. This would appear to violate the right to be forgotten. In the end, a solution will need to be devised that affords sufficient privacy to users.

Conclusion

Blockchain technology could be another case where an adaptation of an original invention goes on to eclipse its original function. For example, the internet was born out of a US defence project (to provide resilient communications in the event of a cold war) that went on to revolutionise twenty-first-century business and communication.

Today, the internet’s spectacular rise leaves people wondering how they ever lived without it. Could blockchain technology go on to become another core utility, long after Bitcoin becomes obsolete? A lot still hinges on the ability to store and process vast quantities of data without expending unacceptable amounts of fossil fuel energy. At this stage, it is too soon to tell.

https://themarketmogul.com/blockchain-technology-potential/

Bring On The Cashless Future

Mark Ellis

JUST ONES AND ZEROES.  PHOTOGRAPHER: PARK JI-HWAN/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

JUST ONES AND ZEROES.  PHOTOGRAPHER: PARK JI-HWAN/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

Cash had a pretty good run for 4,000 years or so. These days, though, notes and coins increasingly seem declasse: They're dirty and dangerousunwieldy and expensive, antiquated and so very analog.

Sensing this dissatisfaction, entrepreneurs have introduced hundreds of digital currencies in the past few years, of which bitcoin is only the most famous. Now governments want in: The People's Bank of China says it intends to issue a digital currency of its own. Central banks in Ecuador, the Philippines, the U.K. and Canada are mulling similar ideas. At least one company has sprung up to help them along.

Much depends on the details, of course. But this is a welcome trend. In theory, digital legal tender could combine the inventiveness of private virtual currencies with the stability of a government mint.

Most obviously, such a system would make moving money easier. Properly designed, a digital fiat currency could move seamlessly across otherwise incompatible payment networks, making transactions faster and cheaper. It would be of particular use to the poor, who could pay bills or accept payments online without need of a bank account, or make remittances without getting gouged.

For governments and their taxpayers, potential advantages abound. Issuing digital currency would be cheaper than printing bills and minting coins. It could improve statistical indicators, such as inflation and gross domestic product. Traceable transactions could help inhibit terrorist financing, money laundering, fraud, tax evasion and corruption.

The most far-reaching effect might be on monetary policy. For much of the past decade, central banks in the rich world have been hampered by what economists call the zero lower bound, or the inability to impose significantly negative interest rates. Persistent low demand and high unemployment may sometimes require interest rates to be pushed below zero -- but why keep money in a deposit whose value keeps shrinking when you can hold cash instead? With rates near zero, that conundrum has led policy makers to novel and unpredictable methods of stimulating the economy, such as large-scale bond-buying.

A digital legal tender could resolve this problem. Suppose the central bank charged the banks that deal with it a fee for accepting paper currency. In that way, it could set an exchange rate between electronic and paper money -- and by raising the fee, it would cause paper money to depreciate against the electronic standard. This would eliminate the incentive to hold cash rather than digital money, allowing the central bank to push the interest rate below zero and thereby boost consumption and investment. It would be a big step toward doing without cash altogether.

Digital legal tender isn't without risk. A policy that drives down the value of paper money would meet political resistance and -- to put it mildly -- would require some explaining. It could hold back private innovation in digital currencies. Security will be an abiding concern. Non-cash payments also tend to exacerbate the human propensity to overspend. And you don't have to be paranoid to worry about Big Brother tracking your financial life.

Governments must be alert to these problems -- because the key to getting people to adopt such a system is trust. A rule that a person's transaction history could be accessed only with a court order, for instance, might alleviate privacy concerns. Harmonizing international regulations could encourage companies to keep experimenting. And an effective campaign to explain the new tender would be indispensable.

If policy makers are wise and attend to all that, they just might convince the public of a surprising truth about cash: They're better off without it.

To contact the senior editor responsible for Bloomberg View’s editorials: David Shipley at davidshipley@bloomberg.net.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-01-31/bring-on-the-cashless-future

Never mind what you heard; millennials use cash

Mark Ellis

Dec. 9, 2016 | by atm Atom

You have probably seen headlines declaring something like, "Young Americans Hate Cash." However, the truth is quite the opposite.

Millennials use more cash than anyone else.

According to the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco's 2015 Diary of Consumer Payment Choice, released Nov. 3, Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 used cash in 38 percent of all payment transactions last year.

Many "death of cash" stories reference often-unscientific online surveys that rely on participants' preferences and memories.

By contrast, the Federal Reserve Bank collects data for the Diary of Consumer Payment Choice from a carefully selected, nationally representative sample of U.S. consumers who are instructed to record information for every payment transaction made over a three-day period.

In addition to its revelations about cash use by millennials, the Federal Reserve report shows that cash still outstrips every other payment method —  debit, credit, personal check or digital device — with a use rate of 32 percent by Americans as a whole.

Primary uses for cash in the report included person-to-person payments such as gifts and fund transfers, government transactions (75 percent) and nonprofit transactions (40 percent).

Additionally, cash was the primary method of payment in 39 percent of transactions involving food and personal care supplies, vehicle-related expenses, and entertainment and transportation.

The media have paid a great deal of attention to predictions about the end of cash and the promotion of credit, debit and digital transactions.

The further expansion into the payments market by players such as PayPal and mobile apps such as Venmo, along with the introduction of ApplePay, AndroidPay, Samsung Pay and a multitude of other digital wallet-style payment options could be part of what is feeding the tendency to dismiss cash as the relic of a bygone era.

But the fact remains that more than two-thirds (69 percent) of U.S. consumers still carry cash.

The Fed report includes other interesting facts about cash, as well. For instance:

  • cash remains the preferred payment option for low-income Americans (those whose income is less than $25,000 annually);
  • cash is also the top payment instrument for Americans with annual household incomes of $50,000 or less;
  • cash is the second most used form of payment for households with an annual income between $50,000 and $100,000; and
  • cash maintains a solid rate of use (between 23 percent and 25 percent) in households with an annual income of more than $100,000.

The bottom line: Everyone uses cash.

Despite reports — whether from consumers or the media — cash is far from being a dead payment method. It continues to be a healthy part of a growing payments ecosystem and a standby for many when it comes to situations involving smaller payments, emergencies and disasters.

http://www.atmmarketplace.com/blogs/never-mind-what-you-heard-millennials-use-cash/?utm_source=Email_marketing&utm_campaign=emnaAMC12122016&cmp=1&utm_medium=html_email

Too big to die?: Debating the future of cash

Mark Ellis

September 28 2016  Mike Lee, CEO ATM Industry Association

I've just returned from the Bank Customer Experience Summit in Chicago, where I was privileged to be on the winning team in this annual event's great debate on the question, "Is it time to kill cash?"

Despite the arrival of digital shopping and digital banking, which are to be warmly welcomed by all due to the new levels of convenience, customer experience and choice they offer consumers, especially on the mobile web, the facts demonstrate overwhelmingly that cash is both too big and too important to remove from society.

Cash is just too big to die because:

  • it is used for 83.7 percent of global retail transactions;
  • the world's 2 billion unbanked people — including 38 percent of adults and 28 percent of households in the United States — depend on cash to live;
  • the world's two largest countries, India and China, with a combined population of 2.6 billion people, are cash-loving, cash-intensive societies;
  • advanced and major economies like Germany, Japan and Italy are also cash-preferring and cash-intensive (79 percent of payments in Germany, for example, are made in cash, according to the Bundesbank);
  • the informal sector, which makes up 18.3 percent of the GDP in the European Union alone, is totally cash dependent; and
  • there are 360 billion banknotes in circulation, with 150 billion new ones printed each year, as well as $400,000 in cash pumped out of 3 million ATMs every second.

Cash is just too important to eliminate because:

  • cash is humanity's favorite and most trusted form of money;
  • cash is vital to the money supply of every nation, and is classified by governments as a safe asset, forming a critical part of monetary policy and stability;
  • cash, which always works and is the most ubiquitous form of money, is the number one back-up payment method when electronic systems go down or don't work;
  • use of cash is a proven method in households across the nations of learning how to budget and how to fight debt by staying within budget;
  • most merchants worldwide accept cash as the most common type of payment and cash drives sales for countless small businesses and entrepreneurs;
  • both baby boomers and millennials include cash as part of their weekly payments portfolio;
  • international aid agencies and donors are calling for an increase in the provision of cash, rather than physical aid, to victims of natural disasters and wars; their experience has shown that cash can help displaced people get back on their feet; and
  • the U.S. dollar is the world's reserve currency and it plays a very important role as a store of value and investment, and for backing up currencies hit by changing exchange rates.

In our closing statement in Chicago, the pro-cash team argued that there simply is no business case for restricting freedom of choice in payments for millions of consumers and merchants through the eradication of cash.

If you want to diminish human freedom — whether for citizens or businesses — you need a darn good reason. But we could find no commensurate rationale for taking away the option to use cash when the vast majority of cash transactions are perfectly legitimate and made in good faith.

Some argue that the justification for the abolition of cash is its use in criminal activity. But let's look at the figures.

Card fraud is increasing at a faster annual rate than card sales. A Nilson report showed that sales of cards grew 15 percent in 2015, compared with a 19 percent rise in card fraud for the same period.

Meanwhile, e-crime has become a huge business. Some estimates put the cost of cybercrime to the global economy at more than $445 billion. Compared with the scale of card data fraud and e-crime, crimes involving cash can be counted as peanuts. Cash, in fact, is a bulwark against e-crime and identity theft.

Not only is there an absence of a proper rationale for restricting freedom of choice to use cash, but also, a cashless state would almost certainly deepen already fragile social divisions between rich and poor, haves and have-nots; between the banked and unbanked, and along the digital divide.

The abolition of cash could seriously endanger social cohesion and set back any upward mobility between the informal sector and formal economy.

Both sides of the great Chicago debate ended up agreeing on this point: Cash is not broken. So the idea of the cashless society becomes a solution desperaely seeking a problem.

And, oh, yes, besides all this, cash doesn't have batteries that can explode or run down; it requires no power at all to work. And yet a cash payment is a super-fast transaction with immediate settlement.

Cash is so liquid and so easy. It also enables an anonymous transaction, which provides a welcome slice of privacy for individuals in today's high-surveillance societies. On top of all this, cash is absolutely fee-free for citizens to use.

These are some of the main reasons why any freedom-loving human being would cherish the choice of using cash — along with all the innovative digital and plastic forms of money we can use to buy what we need to live our lives well.

http://www.atmmarketplace.com/blogs/too-big-to-die-the-case-for-the-future-of-cash/?utm_source=Email_marketing&utm_campaign=EMNAAMC09302016&cmp=1&utm_medium=htmlemailmell

Losing Sparta: The Bitter Truth Behind the Gospel of Productivity

Mark Ellis

When Lisa Norris was a kid in Cookeville, Tennessee, her father worked at Acme Boots, and that plant and her childhood were intertwined. One of her earliest memories is of wandering around the factory among bins of leather, breathing in the smell of the well-iled wood floors. Then the boot plant went to Mexico and her dad landed at Wrangler, which makes jeans, and then Red Kap, which makes workwear, and rarely ever again did he stay at a job for more than eighteen months. Each time, the plant would downsize or shutter, the jobs would cross the border, and he’d have to start all over again.

Norris spent her teenage years doing 4- and helping out at her grandfather’s hardware store. She also went to five different high schools as her father chased work. This experience is why, in her early thirties, after several years doing human resources in the auto and defense industries, she started her own consulting firm dedicated to helping plants implement lean manufacturing principles and union avoidance, in an effort to save jobs in central Tennessee. “In all of my eleven years I never had a plant that left the area that I was involved with,” she told me proudly. “I was able to say nothing’s ever left. Nothing’s left the building.”

In late 2008, she got a call from Dave Uhrik, a veteran operations manager she deeply admired, who broke the news that he’d been hired on to manage a plant near Sparta, just down the road from where Norris grew up. The large factory produced commercial lighting fixtures and had recently been acquired by Philips, the $39 billion Dutch multinational best known for its vast array of consumer products, from light bulbs to electric toothbrushes to television sets. It took Norris “exactly twenty-even minutes” to decide that she was going to sell her business and join what Uhrik pitched as “the dream team.” It was barely half the pay, but it was a chance to put all of her ideas into practice, to be part of “the best of the best,” a model for what was possible in American manufacturing. “It was like, Oh, my goodness, we could do great things!”

The humming Sparta plant had it all. For one thing, the town is within a day’s haul of most US markets—rom New York and Chicago to Atlanta, St. Louis, and Dallas. Tennessee has decent, well-aintained highways. The plant was union— new experience for Norris—ut this IBEW local was steely-yed about keeping and creating jobs; it had, for example, accepted a two-ier pay scale and surrendered contract protections in order to attract a highly automated production line from New Jersey. The press for that new line, known as a Bliss, was nearly three stories high (so big it had to be anchored twenty feet underground) and could stamp out eight or ten massive commercial fluorescent fixtures every minute. It attracted lucrative contracts from hospitals, prisons, grocery-tore chains, and Walmart supeenters. Norris called it “a monument.” Brent Hall, the union rep, described it as a beating heart. “Every time that press rolled over,” he said, “the whole building would shake.”

Other production lines at the plant could push out smaller, custom products tailored to the needs of a specific buyer. A whole swath of the maintenance crew had been sent, on the plant’s dime, to get certified as industrial electricians and welders and millwrights so that they could retool machines on the fly, switching production from one job to the next in a matter of minutes. “Anything they wanted, we’d build it for them,” Scott Vincent, one veteran electrician told me. With Uhrik and Norris at the helm, the plant started buying steel and other inventory on consignment, and trimmed turnaround times to the point that its invoices would be getting paid before the bills on raw materials were even due. Tasked with cutting costs by $4 million, the management team tapped employees to identify inefficiencies in the assembly process, worked with suppliers to reduce components costs, and drastically reduced the number of products with defects. The plant boosted productivity by 7 percent and kept labor costs low, at around 4 percent. Still, thanks to the union, most workers were earning $13 to $15 an hour—“real decent money around here,” as one maintenance worker told me, especially for a workforce where many had never graduated high school—ith two to three weeks of vacation and a blue-hip health plan. Employees stuck around for years, knew their jobs inside and out, and had a rare esprit de corps. When they faced tight deadlines, fabricators would volunteer to come in as early as 4 or 5 a.m. so they could get a head start before the paint crew arrived at six. In December 2009 the Sparta facility was named by Industreek as a Best Plant of the year, one of the top ten in North America. In the months that followed, it won Best Plant within Philips’s global lighting division as well as the firm’s global “Lean Challenge.” That summer, plant managers invited state officials and legislators to Sparta to celebrate.

Then, one morning in November 2010, a Philips executive no one recognized drove up and walked into the plant, accompanied by a security guard wearing sunglasses and a sidearm. He summoned all the employees back to the shipping department and abruptly announced that the plant would be shut down. Though the workers didn’t know it at the time, most of their jobs would be offshored to Monterrey, Mexico. The two of them then walked out the door and drove off. “It was a shock, I’ll tell you,” Ricky Lack said more than two years later. Still brawny in his late fifties, he’d hired on at the plant in 1977, when he was nineteen years old. “My dad worked there,” he said. “Half the plant’s mom or dad or brother worked there. We still don’t know why they left.”

If you listen to any mainstream economistay, former White House economic advisor Gregory Mankiw, the author of one of the nation’s most popular economics textbooks—ou’ll learn that “productivity growth is good for American workers.” Productivity goes up, and with it comes rising prosperity for all. As Adam Davidson, the popular economics guru of Planet Money and the New York Times Magazine, wrote recently, “Productivity, in and of itself, is a remarkably good thing. Only through productivity growth can the average quality of human life improve.”

American workers are astonishingly productive. In fact, American labor productivity has grown every single year for the past three decades, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. US productivity zoomed up after the most recent financial crash, rising sharply from 2008 to 2009, and again from 2009 to 2010. By contrast, productivity actually shrank during this period in such industrialized nations as Japan, Germany, and the UK. Sure, a share of these productivity gains are due to American firms outsourcing and offshoring jobs to cheap labor markets, but the bulk of it comes from American workers adapting to new, more efficient technologies and working harder and faster than ever before—nd for less pay.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle tend to lean on American productivity as the solution to our current economic woes, a phenomenon in force during the last presidential campaign. “I know we can out-ompete any other nation on Earth,” Barack Obama told the nation in a weekly address in January 2011. “We just have to make sure we’re doing everything we can to unlock the productivity of American workers, unleash the ingenuity of American businesses, and harness the dynamism of America’s economy.” Mitt Romney, too, argued that “[a] productivity and growth strategy has immediate and very personal benefits,” and that “economic vitality, innovation, and productivity are inexorably linked with the happiness and well-eing of our citizens.” The idea being that if we sprinkle a little stimulus money here or some deregulation there, depending upon your orientation, American workers will somehow, through sheer grit and generous doses of Red Bull, be able to dig deep and work even faster, even harder, and even more efficiently than before—ven though they’ve been doing so for decades—hereby jump-tarting our economic engine. After that, the sky’s the limit.

So why didn’t this play out for the ferociously productive workers at Philips’s award-inning plant in Tennessee? This “engaged workforce,” in the words of IndustryWeek, had hiked production on some lines by more than 60 percent, cut changeover time between small orders by 90 percent, and reduced the number of defective parts by 95 percent, making the plant one of the most productive in America.

There is data to bolster the gospel of productivity. From the end of World War II until the early 1970s, when many policy makers were coming of age, productivity and wages rose in tandem in the United States, in a steady upward curve of prosperity so dependable that it began to seem inevitable. But since then, as economists only began to notice in the mid-990s, productivity has continued to grow while real wages have flattened or even dropped for a majority of workers; most of the real income growth in recent decades has come from households working more hours or more jobs.

During the current recovery, productivity growth hasn’t even resulted in increased hiring; rather, it has occurred in concert with massive layoffs and record long-erm unemployment. “U.S. employers cut jobs pitilessly” during the recession, noted a typical story from the Associated Press. “Yet after shrinking payrolls, many companies found they could produce just as much with fewer workers.” The result has been a recovery marked by increased productivity and record corporate profits, but with catastrophically low employment growth. Yet economists and pundits continue to chew over our “jobless recovery” as if it were an anomaly.

When Philips announced its plans to shut down the plant in Sparta, the firm was in the black, aided by $7.2 million in federal stimulus grants and contracts. Profits were even better the following year as the firm began to lay off the plant’s nearly 300 workers. Even Philips’s lighting division was doing well. By late 2010, three years into the recovery, corporate profits, in general, had bounced back decisively, reaching record highs. Yet layoffs continued apace—.4 million in 2010, 1.3 million a year in 2011 and 2012—ell above precession levels.

Among other profitable firms—ndeed, Fortune’s list of America’s most profitable firms in 2012, the year the Philips plant finally closed its gates—losures and layoffs have been widespread: Chevron lays off 103 from a New Mexico mine; Walmart shuts down a New York office, putting 275 out of work; Ford shuts down two assembly plants in Minnesota, laying off nearly 1,700; IBM lays off 1,790 from its business units; Microsoft lays off 5,000. Exxon, ranked number one in profitability by Fortunein 2012, with $41 billion in profits in 2011, shrank its global workforce by more than 15,000 between 2010 and 2012. Chevron, at number two with profits of $27 billion, added only a thousand US jobs during that period. Apple was the only one of the country’s five most profitable firms to add more than 10,000 jobs during that time (and Apple’s public disclosures don’t specify how many of those jobs were domestic). The latest Commerce Department data show that all US multinationals combined added a net total of only half a million jobs domestically between 2002 and 2011, but added 3.5 million jobs abroad, an indication of offshoring on a very grand scale.

Josh Bivens, an economist with the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, DC, said that increased productivity like that generated at Philips’s plant in Sparta could create jobs in theory, but weak demand is standing in the way. “One way you can imagine productivity gains not translating to rising demand is if more of those gains go to corporate profits, rather than wage growth,” he said. “The share of corporate-ector profits as a share of income is the highest since 1951. They’re not investing in capital, they’re sitting on piles of money. We’d see more job growth if that weren’t the case.”

One might be forgiven for asking what, exactly, all this productivity is for. “We busted our butts to get where we were at,” Ricky Lack said the first time we spoke. “We got to number one. And it didn’t matter.”

White County, Tennessee, is a verdant place, with rolling hills, lush pasture, and wheat fields that gleam in the late afternoon light. But it has a scarred history. In the late eighteenth century, early settlers fought bloody skirmishes against the Cherokee to gain control of this land. The county sat in the crosshairs of the Civil War, straddling the dividing line between Union and Confederate enclaves, and served as a base for one of the war’s most sadistic Confederate guerilla fighters, Champ Ferguson. White County is far less divided now, held together by its intense conservatism—omney won by thirty-even points here—nd its demographics—he county is 96 percent white.

After the war, White County was built up on wheat, corn, tobacco, and livestock, and later coal and timber; Sparta, the county seat, is scattered with hundred-ear-ld brick homes and aging red barns from its time as a small but bustling agricultural center. Manufacturing didn’t pick up until after World War II, when Tennessee became one of the first states in the nation to pass a “right to work” law, making it inhospitable to unions but inviting to firms in search of cheaper labor.

It was front-age news in the Sparta Expositor when Thomas Industries broke ground for a new lighting-ixture plant in 1963. Other plants set up shop around the same time—he workwear manufacturer Red Kap, the car-arts maker Wagner Electric, and Mallory Timers, a maker of appliance parts. By the late 1970s, when Ricky Lack hired on with Thomas Industries, there were enough humming plants in town working two and three shifts that he could more or less walk out of high school, walk up to the plant doors, and get to work.

By the time Philips shut it down, that lighting-ixture plant was one of the only factories in the county still employing several hundred people. Red Kap, which had been hemorrhaging jobs for years, finally closed up shop in 2000; Mallory shut its doors and moved to China just a few years later. Paul Bailey, a member of the Sparta Chamber of Commerce who was then a White County commissioner (and is now a state representative), recalls his failed efforts to engage Tennessee’s Congressional delegation in a desperate attempt to save the Philips plant. “The feeling that I got from those gentlemen was, ‘You know, it happens all the time.’” Hall, the union rep, wasn’t alone in suspecting that their indifference stemmed mostly from the fact that the Philips plant was union; Sen. Bob Corker viciously attacked Volkswagen for allowing a United Auto Workers organizing drive at its plant in Chattanooga last February (the union ultimately lost the vote); Rep. Scott DesJarlais, meanwhile, is a staunch antiunion Tea Party Republican.

Plant closings do happen all the time in the United States. More than 70,000 have shuttered over the past fifteen years—ore than twelve a day, not to be replaced. Last September, the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics stopped tracking mass layoffs, a low-riority activity sacrificed to the sequester.

Yet, as the time I spent in Sparta made clear, every one of those closures was a body blow to hundreds of families—o entire communities.

“This place, at the time, you loved going to work,” Bo McCurry, a friend of Lack’s, said of the Philips plant. “You knew everybody.” On mild evenings, he and Lack and friends would head out to the parking lot after a shift for beers on his tailgate. On hot afternoons, someone would swing by McDonald’s and pick up sweet teas. When there was a birthday, everyone ate. When there was a death, everyone grieved. McCurry’s brothers had worked at the plant and so had his sons, whose names are tattooed on his muscular right arm. It was where he met his wife, Donna. “I don’t know how many families came up in here,” Lack said of the place. “Well, all of White County.” At the plant, it seemed, you were never alone.

When I sat down with Sparta’s mayor, Jeff Young, in his auto collision shop—he area’s political and business leaders are one and the same— said I’d heard that he’d had family at the plant, too. He told me his mother was one of the first dozen hired on there, right after he was born, in 1963. “I was all through that plant as a young kid,” he said. There were gifts and a movie for the kids at Christmas, and cookouts every summer. The plant meant everything to her, he said. She worked in assembly, and he remembers her bringing home stacks of small, green, metal pans, “about like a Coney Island chili dog, I guess,” some with bits of wire, others with plastic sleeves, and “after dinner was put up and the table was cleaned, she’d sit and watch TV and we’d all put these things together. And that way when she would go into work the next day she’d have hundreds of ’em ready,” so that production could get up to full speed first thing in the morning. “I’m sort of tooting her horn,” he said, “but she wasn’t the only one who did that.”

Work at the plant wasn’t easy. “You would actually go home and your hands would hurt, your elbows would hurt, your back would hurt,” Donna McCurry told me. “As far as heat-ise, during the summer, you’d have a fan hanging on a pole, and if you was lucky it would hit you. And in the winter, there was heat, but depends upon where you stood if you would be warm or not.” Running the forklift gave Bo McCurry two herniated discs, and a piece of steel cost Jim Gray an eye. Until fifteen or twenty years ago, every pipe in the plant was wrapped in asbestos, and many workers died of lung cancer. (“But of course if you died of lung cancer it was because you smoked,” Lack said, inhaling and laughing.) Some said that the magnified safety glasses destroyed their eyesight, and for years people were allowed to work the spray booth without breathing gear, emerging, Bo recalled, like “Casper the ghost.”

But the plant is mourned like a person. It provided a good living, the kind of paycheck, in Donna’s words, “where you was proud to go to the bank.” Pay that bought homes and land and boats for the lake, even sent kids to college. The literacy and GED classes, the chance for technical certification, made the plant a place where you could learn and grow. And the union offered dignity and job security, as well as a deep sense of community.

Local elected officials and business leaders saw the plant’s closure as a profound defeat. There were the 284 laid-ff workers, plus their families. There was the hit to local suppliers—mong them the pallet company, the cardboard supplier, and Paul Bailey’s trucking business, which lost at least $1 million in annual revenue. Directly and indirectly, the plant was responsible for some 2,200 local jobs, according to an analysis by Uhrik and Norris, the plant’s top management. Unemployment in White County shot up from 9.9 percent in November of 2011, before the major layoffs began, to 11.1 percent the following February, when the bulk of the workforce was let go. The county’s labor force also shrank 1.2 percent during that time, likely reflecting the many older workers who retired early, on diminished Social Security checks, rather than look for work they didn’t believe was there. Sales-ax figures dropped, a measure of the belt-ightening that ensued. “As far as the county, yeah, it hurt us bad,” said County Executive Herd Sullivan, a tall, long-imbed man with a shock of white hair. “We’ve got some employment back in since then. But you never hardly get what you lose. You just don’t get it back.” 

There were other ripple effects. The Philips lighting plant was the last union plant in the county— loss repeated across the state, where, according to Lawrence Mishel of the Economic Policy Institute, unionization has dropped from about 25 percent in the 1970s to a mere 6 percent today. For years, negotiations over wages and benefits at the plant set the standard at other big factories in town. “We were the benchmarks,” Jim Gray, a Detroit transplant, told me one night over dinner with several other refugees from the plant. “We controlled their raises,” Lack added. Without that pressure, prospects aren’t bright in White County for what decent-aying factory jobs remain.

Back when the plant was Thomas Industries, headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky, plant veterans say it wasn’t uncommon for the owner, Lee B. Thomas, to show up on the shop floor to address his team. He invited the union in from the start. As Scott Vincent, the plant’s self-ppointed historian, explained, “In the ’60s, if you were going to sell light fixtures and it was going to be profitable, you had to have the union label on it,” because the construction trades were so strong that they would simply refuse to install nonunion fixtures. Thomas liked to say that the union kept people honest. But after the Philips acquisition in late 2007, the plant was in the hands of someone else, or rather something else, entirely.

Philips is a multibillion-ollar multinational firm that sells everything from health-are equipment to home appliances across the globe. Under Philips, the Sparta plant’s management systems were functional, Lisa Norris said, but far more cumbersome than when the plant was run by a small company specializing in lighting. Once the closure was announced, the firm was “like a headless monster,” Mayor Young told me. “I mean nobody could find the guy in charge that we could sit down and have a conversation with—hat one guy, that if you made him understand he could say, ‘Well, let’s just not do that.’”

The union launched a Keep the Lights On campaign, with viral videos and an online petition drive, followed by a frigid December march from the small, blue union hall, down two-ane McMinnville Highway to the plant. County and state officials, who had already given the plant tax abatements and energy subsidies, scrambled to come up with new ways to entice Philips to stay. But at whom, exactly, were these efforts directed? Young and Sullivan and Bailey and Norris slowly went up the food chain in Philips’s North American division, but even when they got on the phone with Zia Eftekhar, then head of US operations, they still weren’t convinced that he was the one who’d made the call to close the plant. They were left, Hall said, “fighting someone over in the Nether-lands who couldn’t find Sparta, Tennessee, with MapQuest.”

Their experiences echoed my own, as Philips declined interview requests and offered only a few brief comments by e-ail, the first of which read, in part, “Philips maintains constant evaluation of all its business activities to ensure optimum performance and the decision to divest this business was made in response to the long-erm evolution taking place within luminaires manufacturing.” Calls left at two of Eftekhar’s homes (he is now retired) went unanswered. Rudy Provoost, then head of Philips’s lighting division and now CEO of Rexel, the electrical-upplies firm, also declined an interview.

Clearly, Philips slashed its labor costs by moving most of the Sparta operations to Monterrey. (A small piece of production was sent instead to a Philips plant in Tupelo, Mississippi.) A 2006 report by a Dutch labor union on Philips’s operations in Mexico found that its lighting workers in Monterrey were paid as little as $9 a day, an amount insufficient to support their basic household needs. A 2010 human-ights report also found evidence that the Monterrey plant had ushered in a company union, a way for employers to block genuine collective bargaining and suppress wages. At other Philips plants in Mexico, investigators found that workers were only allowed one bathroom break per ten-our workday and were barred from seeking medical attention unless their situation became life-hreatening. What’s more, in Mexico Philips would be free of many environmental regulations that had governed the plant in Tennessee.

Philips did, by e-ail, offer another explanation for the move: “The facility manufactured fluorescent lighting which is an older lighting technology, while the entire lighting industry is moving towards digitized LED lighting systems. The company opted to consolidate manufacturing into other existing facilities that could produce the same product.” Dutch journalist Henk van Weert, who covers Philips for the newspaper Eindhovens Dagblad, echoed that assessment, saying that Philips made a decision to charge into the LED market and was “selling off their conventional industrial footprint” to marshal resources for the fight. But this explanation doesn’t quite add up. In 2010, with buildings across the globe still switching from incandescent to fluorescent, growth in the fluorescent industry was projected at a healthy 7.9 percent a year through 2014— comfortable window for beginning to shift Sparta’s production over to LED. And Philips didn’t eliminate its fluorescent production in 2010; it simply offshored most of it.

Vincent and others at the plant tended to think that Philips bought the plant with the intent of shuttering it, in a bid to eliminate the competition. But Lisa Norris’s take seemed the most persuasive: Philips’s model is to concentrate production, and so the particulars of how well a given plant performs—ven if it’s Philips’s best-erforming plant worldwide—on’t matter. “There’s a momentum that gets in place when people say we’re going to close these plants, and it becomes a point of weakness for anyone to stand up and say, ‘No,’” she told me one evening. “No one feels strong enough to do that. Because they feel like it’s showing some sort of human weakness, that they’re making an emotional decision—hen in fact, there’s a business decision there. And so it gains a sort of momentum in an emperor-has-no-clothes sort of way. And so people are compelled to do the wrong things. And then you start adding incentives based on the execution of those plans and now you’ve got everybody marching straight off a cliff.”

Once it was clear that Philips was determined to close the plant, Norris, Uhrik, and a lean-perations expert named Nicole Belitz pulled together a detailed proposal to buy it. They knew the numbers better than anyone, and calculated that the plant, which operated at extremely healthy margins, could be solidly profitable on its own.

Team Sparta, as they dubbed themselves, did the math, calculating the full cost to Philips of moving production to Mexico, and concluded that Philips would be dramatically increasing customer lead times, which would likely reduce its market share. The team also projected that Philips would have to rely more on distribution centers, raising warehousing costs; that the firm would be shipping fixtures longer distances on worse roads, meaning higher transportation costs and more breakage; that it would be using less automation and end up with more defects; not to mention the estimated $30 million it would cost to excavate those massive machines and rebuild them in Monterrey. Factoring in those costs, Team Sparta was convinced that the local plant could sell fixtures to Philips for less than it would cost Philips to make them in Mexico and still clear at least $1 million in annual profits. 

Uhrik and Norris had no equity of their own and would need at least $12 million in start-p capital to take over the plant, a seemingly quixotic quest. But the business case was so impressive that when they brought their plan to First National Bank in Knoxville, its investment group jumped in with $4 million. “We were able to show very healthy margins, and that moving to Mexico would hurt turnaround and logistics costs,” Norris recalls, “and show that in a consumer-riven market, where a contractor suddenly needs thirty-ive troffer lights and he wants it next week, the Philips model was questionable.” The Tennessee Valley Authority and the USDA’s Rural Economic Development Loan and Grant program each independently reviewed the plan and together committed to another $3.75 million. After yet another review, this one by White County’s Local Industrial Board, the county commissioners, including Bailey, offered to come up with the rest by putting a $5 million bond on the ballot. They believed that the strapped citizens of White County, with their $30,000 average annual earnings and 20 percent poverty rate, would vote it up. “We thought we could create a model where everybody owned a piece of this,” Norris said. “That was the dream.” County officials were also convinced they’d get a solid return on their investment.

As I combed through the Team Sparta business plan, I became skeptical about whether this kind of granular analysis was ever performed by the Philips executives who decided to move the plant to Monterrey. Norris was in regular contact with Philips’s North American headquarters, and she certainly saw no evidence of it. This begged a larger question: How many of those 70,000 American plants offshored in recent decades, those millions of American jobs lost, had been the result not of a ruthless commitment to the bottom line, but of a colossal failure of due diligence? 

Even after Team Sparta ran the numbers for them, Philips executives barely reviewed the proposal. “Yeah, the plan got in front of him,” Sullivan said of Eftekhar, the head of North American operations. “They just never did try to get it to work. They never even considered it much, I don’t think.”

For something so vital to the future of the US economy, there’s disturbingly little data collected about plant closings and offshoring, let alone analysis of what goes into these decisions. Corporate annual reports and SEC filings are silent about the logic behind closings. Philips’s 2010 SEC filings, for example, reveal nothing about why the firm offshored the Sparta plant, or the many other North American plants it has shuttered, beyond a brief reference to “initiatives to structurally reduce our overall cost structure” and “transferring technologies to low-ost countries.” WARN notices, required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act from firms before they make mass layoffs, only contain numbers of jobs lost, not the thinking behind them, and are arduous to examine because they’re filed state by state. Until the 2013 sequester, the Bureau of Labor Statistics compiled them but only published aggregate data that lumped offshoring in with temporary layoffs. As the SEC does not require firms to break down their employee numbers by nation, multinationals, like Philips, increasingly provide only global or regional numbers in their public filings. American multinationals are required to report their total employees here and abroad to the Commerce Department each year, but the aggregate data made publicly available provides only a rough hint as to the scale of offshoring—nd, again, nothing whatsoever about the thinking behind it. A 2010 NBC News/Wall Street Journalsurvey found that more Americans—6 percent—lamed offshoring for the struggling economy than any other cause. And yet the Department of Labor tracks offshoring numbers only to the extent that laid-ff workers petition for “trade-ffected” status, which entitles them to training grants. Since few nonunion workers know to do this, the DOL numbers are definitely an undercount. Yet in 2010, the most recent data available, such petitions represented 287,000 offshored jobs, the equivalent of a thousand factories like the one in Sparta.

These are catastrophic job losses. Yet no regulatory body ever asks the firms responsible to explain why they offshored the jobs—ven when those firms, like Philips, receive substantial taxpayer subsidies.

It was left to two scholars, Kate Bronfenbrenner, of Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations, and Stephanie Luce, of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, to look behind the numbers. In a 2004 study, they found that offshoring, that old story from the 1970s and ’80s, was still sharply on the rise. They used detailed first-uarter data to estimate that 406,000 jobs would be offshored in 2004 (a number roughly triple the widely recognized undercount from BLS), compared with 204,000 three years earlier. More of these jobs, they found, moved to Mexico than to any other country. Other details are salient. “Once a place sells to somebody else that’s not union, you might as well shut the damn doors,” Bo McCurry said to me one afternoon, and Bronfenbrenner’s data shows he’s probably right. Though only 8 percent of private-ector workplaces are unionized in the United States, 29 percent of production shifts involved unionized facilities, implying that offshoring may be, at least in part, a union-voidance strategy. Even more interestingly, the overwhelming majority of the facilities being offshored were owned by large, profitable multinationals—ot, as one might imagine, by firms struggling to compete. And many of the closures took place soon after the plants had been acquired.

“Corporations often do things to impress their shareholders,” Bronfenbrenner said. “Everybody is offshoring and outsourcing, even though it isn’t necessarily a good financial decision. It may actually cost more, but to investors it looks like sound management. It’s just keeping up with the Joneses, where the Joneses are every other manufacturing company in the world.” 

A 2012 study by Michael E. Porter and Jan W. Rivkin of Harvard Business School, based on interviews with 1,767 executives involved in location decisions over the previous year, confirms Bronfenbrenner’s view. Porter and Rivkin found that “rigorous processes for location choices” are “far from universal” and that such decision-aking processes “have lagged behind those for virtually all other major investment decisions.” They found that companies often underestimate the hidden costs of offshoring, overlook the advantages of a US location and “fall prey to biases that work against the U.S.”

Combined, this research hints at a radical idea: that offshoring has simply become a reflex. And if that’s true, all the lean manufacturing and just-n-ime production and automation and retraining and two-ier pay scales in the world won’t be enough to save American production jobs.

So much in the Sparta story defies the familiar political scripts: Norris, the union-voidance expert, along with Bailey and Sullivan, of the Chamber of Commerce, joining hands with the IBEW to help save a union plant; small businessmen in Tea Party country championing community ownership. It became clear from my conversations that Philips’s actions had deeply offended people’s sense of decency, from the laid-ff workers to what Donna McCurry calls “the big wheels in town,” and that this sense of corporate indecency is what had brought such politically disparate people together. 

Indeed, Gallup polls show that dissatisfaction with major corporations is sharply on the rise, from 48 percent in 2001 to 61 percent in 2013—egardless of respondents’ political affiliation. Another poll found that a majority of Americans view corporate greed as a key factor in the faltering economy. “It’s tragic that companies like that worry so much about the bottom line,” Mayor Young said toward the end of our conversation at his auto shop. “I just think about myself and my business right here. Now how cruel would it be of me to close my business here and move to Lebanon or wherever just because I think I can make $25,000 more a year? To me, it just doesn’t make sense.” If Philips has lost money on the move, it makes no sense at all.

Former members of the management team at the Sparta plant have stayed in touch with several current and former leaders within Philips’s lighting division. According to conversations those managers recounted in detail, the move to Monterrey cut labor costs by more than half, but logistics costs grew by a factor of ten; lead times, meanwhile, ballooned from four to ten days in Sparta to six to eight weeks in Monterrey; and by late last year Philips had lost nearly a third of its market share on the fixtures that used to ship out of Tennessee. Philips spokesperson Silvie Casanova responded by e-ail, saying that while she “can’t get into transportation and labor costs,” the characterizations are untrue and “don’t account for the fact that part of the production was moved to Tupelo.” On the second point she said, “We do not break out lead times by product line, but our lead times have not materially changed due to location.” As for the question of lost market share, she said that it “has to be evaluated in the context of the LED transformation happening in the lighting business. Rather, it’s the rapid adoption of LEDs that is creating the shift and fluorescent technology in general is losing market share. The product lines you are referring to also have LED versions, which need to be factored into the equation.”

There is certainly no evidence that the move made Philips more profitable: According to SEC filings, income from Philips’s Luminaires division fell from $924 million in 2010, the year before the Sparta layoffs began, to $645 million in 2013, the first year operations in Monterrey were fully up and running.

Last August, more than a year after the plant closed its doors, Bo McCurry and Ricky Lack stepped out of Lack’s beat-p Ford Ranger and walked up the sloping, tree-ined drive to the plant’s padlocked gates. It was the first time either one had been back since the closure. Red mallow blossomed under a sign that still read philips professional luminaires—parta operations. Beyond the gates, a monarch butterfly floated by, and a red fox darted out into what was once a bustling loading area, now silent except for the sounds of birds.

“You see that little old blue door?” Lack asked. “Next to the steps. See the bright yellow steps over against the four roll-p doors? Inside. The shipping department. They said we’re shutting the building, closing the plant. End of story. They slipped right out that back door and got in their car and drove away, and that’s it.”

“Couldn’t believe it,” McCurry said. “Everybody was crying.”

The layoffs started in May 2011 and came in waves until, on March 31, 2012, the last employees finished sweeping the factory floor and walked out. After so much time, everyone I asked about that day still choked up and struggled, at least for a moment, to speak. Scott Vincent, hired on to assist with an environmental inspection of the vacant plant, was the very last to go. “To think about all the people that you’d spent your life with. You’d lived with ’em and watched ’em die, and watched their families die and be sick, and suddenly they were all just gone. I mean it was really a struggle to have to live with all that.”

The night before, I’d met up with Brent Hall, the union rep, along with McCurry, Lack, Vincent, and a couple other long-imers, many of whom had rotated in and out of the shop’s union leadership over the years. I’d arrived in town just as their extended unemployment was running out and asked how everyone was getting by. Of the five of them, only two had found jobs. Only Vincent had found a decent manufacturing job, with full-ime hours and health benefits. Lack, fifty-ive, was working as a tree pruner, his skin now a deep mahogany from long hours spent in the sun. His hourly pay wasn’t as good as it was at the plant, and it wasn’t steady work—nly three or four days a week, without paid time off or benefits. Lonnie Barlow had given up on finding work, and went into early retirement at age sixty-ix, turning his attention to the few head of cattle he kept on his patch of land. Jim Gray, the one who lost an eye to the plant, was using state and federal grants for trade-ffected workers to go back to school, studying, at fifty-ight, among a classroom of eighteen- and twenty-ear-lds, how to program industrial equipment. He wasn’t especially optimistic about his chances for getting a decent job afterward, but his unemployment benefits would continue during his schooling, so he figured it was something to keep him going while he looked for work. He spoke wistfully about an electrician job he’d been up for some months back at the Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, an hour and a half away, that would have started at about $17 an hour—he same plant where the widely watched unionization battle would later take place. He guessed that all of the other finalists were in their fifties or sixties, too, all urgently looking for work. One had driven all the way from Detroit to take the practical test.

The others I spoke with were faring no better. As the unemployment checks dried up, I heard of people selling their boats, their ATVs, and even their houses. Marriages were falling apart. People had started drinking. Jerry Pryor, fifty-our, got manufacturing work, making car mirrors, but he had a miserable shift—:30 to 10:30 a.m.—nd was driving twenty-ive miles each way, burning up gas, for less than he got at Philips. Donna McCurry, forty-ix, tried her hand as a CNA at a local nursing home, earning just a dollar above minimum wage, and then left that job to take over a small car-epair shop. She and Bo had bought the shop with the life-insurance money she got after her son died in a car accident, along with some of their serverance pay from the plant. But she was barely making ends meet.

She and Bo, fifty-ight, had recently split up. He was still out of work when we caught up, though now and again he found a temporary placement—e’d just done a few weeks at Unipres, a car-arts plant 100 miles away in Portland, for less than $9 an hour, minus the $100 a week he paid into a carpool to get there and back. At one point a temp agency said it had a permanent placement for him at the S&S Screw factory in Sparta, but before his start date they called to cancel. He and almost everyone else I spoke with from the Philips plant were sure it was because of the union. Bo was serving as president at the time of the plant closing, so he was interviewed on local television and in the Expositor, making him an easy target. Word was S&S hadn’t hired on a single union member from the plant, same as over at THK Rhythm, an auto-arts maker, afraid they’d try to organize the place. Ten years earlier, someone they knew had tried to organize S&S, Bo said, “and they fired his ass on the spot.” (Neither firm returned calls for comment.) He couldn’t seem to figure out how to get a job. When he was younger, he said, you got a job through a friend or relative or neighbor at a plant; now you have to apply through a computer, if you can find someone who has one, or drive twenty minutes to a temp agency in Cookeville. “I probably couldn’t get a job at Walmart as a door greeter,” he told me, defeated. Not only out of work but uninsured, he had to take out a $9,000 bank loan in May to pay for an operation on his herniated discs, what he called “a deal with the devil,” leaving him to pay out $80 a month pretty much forever.

The stories I heard in Sparta gave life to some of the most troubling data about the nature of the economic recovery. Decent paying jobs, like the ones at the Philips plant, where workers were pulling in as much as $16 an hour, have disappeared, replaced by jobs with poverty wages. A 2014 study from the National Employment Law Project found that mid-age jobs comprised 37 percent of recession job losses, but only 26 percent of job growth during the recovery. The low-age jobs—onna’s $8.25-n-our nursing-ome job; Jerry’s $8.50-n-our starting wage at his new factory job—ere the opposite, constituting 22 percent of job losses and 44 percent of job growth. Some of the nation’s fastest-rowing job sectors, such as home health care, have seen the sharpest drops in pay.

There will also be fewer actual jobs. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has projected a 23 percent growth in temporary employment between 2010 and 2020, outpacing most other sectors. The American Staffing Association, which represents temp agencies across the country, sees this as one sign of a “fundamental shift in the role of staffing services in the economy,” with companies only wanting to “use talent” on an “on-emand basis.” I stopped by a couple of Cookeville’s many temp agencies. Most of them are located in strip malls, and nearly all are within yards of a storefront offering, by means of massive bright yellow billboards, car title or payday loans. Women at two agencies told me that the vast majority of their temp placements are now in manufacturing, and that in most cases these plants have outsourced their entire hiring process to agencies like theirs. Angela Atkins, of @Work Personnel Services, told me that after her cut, the factory hires are paid anywhere between $7.25 an hour—ederal minimum wage—nd $12 an hour. “Most of the time it’s temp-to-hire,” she said. “Other times it’s temp all the way, and they can keep ’em for years.” When laid-ff workers come in having earned $15 an hour or more, she asks them, “What are your expectations?” Meaning, it’s time to lower them.

I returned to Sparta in October, to overcast skies and light rain. People’s bitterness about the unjustified closing seemed buried under resignation. Lack introduced me to another friend from the plant, Judy Phifer, who met me one frigid day in a parking lot near the plant where she now worked, a faded pink fleece pulled around her grease-tained T-hirt. A single mother, widowed when her son was only three, she’d been at the Philips plant for nine years, working, by the end, on one of the incentive lines, bringing in good enough money—lmost $14 an hour—o send her kid to Tennessee Tech. Just a few years ago she was confident enough to take out a home-quity loan to replace her roof and central heating system. Now, at fifty-ine, she wasn’t earning enough to keep up on the payments and had put up for sale the home where her husband died and where she’d raised her son.

She tried hard to be upbeat, saying of her impending move, “I guess everybody needs a change and it may do me good.” But times were tough. She was out of work for almost a year after the Philips plant closed down, and she’d been building alternators at the LTD plant for about ten months. Once a union shop, LTD now depended heavily on temp workers. Phifer got hired through an agency in Cookeville called Trustaff, and after Trustaff took its cut, she got only $8.50 an hour, barely north of minimum wage, with no benefits, not even sick days. She had to beg the plant manager not to fire her for taking a day off—npaid—o attend her son’s graduation. She said she works tired and she works sick; she was long overdue for a mammogram but couldn’t afford to pay out of pocket for the test, and couldn’t risk taking the time off to get one anyway. “I’m human just like everybody else,” she said. “I have problems just like anybody else has ’em. But where if you take off to do your problem, you’re going to lose your job, you know?” As we parted ways, she expressed a small flash of anger. “I don’t think the government should let temp services hire people out,” she said. “It’s like being a slave.”

The next day, I stopped by Donna McCurry’s repair shop, and she was faring no better. A tidy, businesslike woman you might mistake for a grade-chool principal, she was only bringing in enough at the shop to pay her mechanics, not herself. So many people in town were out of work that they had to put off car repairs, or when they couldn’t—hen, say, their brakes were completely shot—hey had to stretch out the payments. But after her experience at Philips, McCurry refused to lay off anybody. So she was now back to working overnight shifts at the nursing home for $8.25 an hour, not much more than half of what she earned at Philips, and still putting in six days a week at the shop. There was a futon in back where she grabbed two to three hours of sleep when she could, and that’s all she got. She was giddy with exhaustion the day we spoke, but having just worked three shifts in a row at the nursing home, she was about to get a night off. “It’s sad,” she said, “when you get excited over getting to sleep!” She giggled, and then laughed long and hard. Most days, she would close up the shop, get supper on the table and get the kids to bed, and then head off to the graveyard shift to clean and care for twenty-wo residents, including one ornery man who tended to bruise her up and a few obese residents she had to turn by herself. “As far as their life, it’s normal,” she said of her kids. “My life’s not.”

Like Phifer, she was surviving without healthcare—ennessee is one of twenty-our states that have rejected Medicaid expansion to cover the working poor—nd she had put off a stress test to monitor a chronic heart condition because the $1,000 price tag wasn’t even within reach. She’d been instructed to avoid caffeine, but said she couldn’t make it through the day anymore without a steady stream of coffee and tea.

She was worried about what was next for her teenage daughters. “There’s nothing here in Sparta,” she said. “They’re not going to stay here and have anything in life.” She recalled when Philips and Red Kap had two shifts going, and Mallory had three. “There was jobs. But now the jobs are not here.”

No one had seen her ex-usband Bo in weeks, and he didn’t answer my calls. Lack had quit drinking—n part, he said, because he simply couldn’t afford it—ut told me that Bo’s drinking had gotten worse. As the months ticked by, his job prospects were getting worse, too. According to a recent study out of Northeastern University, employers prefer workers like Bo who have deep experience and a history of low job turnover. But being unemployed for more than six months eliminates those advantages, putting the long-erm jobless on par with applicants who lack any industry experience at all.

There’s a term labor economists use when measuring workforce participation— “discouraged worker.” These are adults who want to work, who are ready to work, but who have given up looking for work. They no longer count as “unemployed,” and so don’t figure into the unemployment numbers. They are nearly invisible. According to analysis of the latest data by the Economic Policy Institute, there were, as of April 2014, 6.2 million of these invisible workers—PI’s number also includes unofficially “discouraged” workers, such as recent grads who find job prospects so bleak they’ve yet to even start looking for work. That’s enough to make the real unemployment rate 9.9 percent, rather than the official 6.3.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics counts “discouraged workers” as those who were recently looking for work but stopped because “they believed no jobs were available for them or there were none for which they would qualify.” They are counted by means of a monthly BLS household survey, and the day a job seeker answers the phone and says he’s given up, he slips from “unemployed” to “discouraged.” I called up economist Jared Bernstein, a former economic advisor to the Obama White House, now a senior fellow with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington, DC, to ask him about this group, the Bo McCurrys of the American economy. “It’s like a game of musical chairs,” he said. “The music stops and there’s nowhere to sit down.” I asked whether there might be an emotional component to this measure, a question of whether you’re still able to hold on to a shred of optimism about your prospects—r not. “I think that’s fair,” he said. “There’s a subjective aspect to this. What’s your assessment of how likely it is for something to come along for you.”

According to the data, the American mood is quite dark. BLS statistics show “an unrelenting fall in the share of the population in the labor force,” in Bernstein’s words, a trend that is “extremely persistent and unresponsive to what growth we’ve had.” In particular, among prime-ge men twenty-ive to fifty-our— revealing demographic because they’re unlikely to be in school and aren’t part of the decades-ong trend of women entering the workforce—“you see a long-erm structural decline that most people relate to a hollowing out of job opportunities.” Bo McCurry once thought he’d retire from the Philips plant, with his home paid off and a nest egg. The last time I spoke with him he told me he was probably going to have to clean out his 401(k) to survive.

Almost every conversation I had with people in Sparta—ith laid-ff workers, with the marginally employed, the broke, and the just-etting-y, with the “big wheels” who’d tried and failed to lure Philips into staying—ircled around at some point to the question of what the future held. Could any of them imagine a thriving industrial base returning to White County? 

“It don’t come back,” Lack told me. “And just because you relocate don’t mean you’ll get a job. You could go to Alaska and still not get a job.”

The editor of the Sparta Expositor suggested, vaguely, that the town economy could be rebuilt around tourism. Paul Bailey, who owns the trucking business, was the most bullish on the potential “reshoring” of jobs. Companies, he said, “they’re looking at communities—ay, for example, Sparta—hat has a good workforce, that’s maybe had a plant like Philips shut down. They’ll come back into this market.” Fewer freight costs, the likelihood of local tax incentives, and “when you’re looking at an area that has 13 or 14 percent unemployment, they’re assuming that they can get a good labor market but yet they can pay a lower wage.”

The math just might work. A 2012 study by Boston Consulting Group found that more than a third of American manufacturers with sales of more than $1 billion were considering reshoring jobs from China—ainly because of rising Chinese labor costs. It’s a grim sort of optimism, that after a brutal restructuring of the US economy, the massive birds of prey might come circling back to pick at the carrion.

Last October I met Dwayne and Darla Pendergraph, both in their midthirties, and their eight-ear-ld daughter, Madison, on the corner of Darla’s father’s land in McMinnville they call home, along with a donkey, two dogs, and three rabbits. They’d already been through three plant closings or major downsizings—ach time, the jobs were offshored to Mexico—y the time Dwayne got hired on at Philips at age thirty-ne. He was brought on to work one of the new automated lines the union had allowed in during the 1990s; at $10.25 an hour, it was a $5 pay cut from his last job, at auto-arts maker Mahle Tennex. So the Philips job wasn’t as good as it was for the old-imers I’d spoken to, and he was far less surprised when the shutdown was announced.

His dream job, the one he imagined retiring from, was several years behind him, at Carrier, a manufacturer of air conditioners. His wiry frame sprawled out on a lawn chair behind their trailer, Dwayne told me that he earned $15.50 an hour there driving a forklift, plus plentiful overtime, making nearly $60,000 a year—ery good money in these parts. “It was a job worth fighting for,” he said. Darla worked at the plant, too, along with her dad; Dwayne and Darla met there. She was three months pregnant when the Carrier shutdown was announced—ll of the family income lost with a baby on the way. They’d nearly burned through their savings and 401(k)s when he finally got the Mahle Tennex job and she got one for $19 an hour at Rich Products, a supplier of baked goods. 

He recalled that the older workers at Carrier, who’d been there for thirty years, took the closure badly. “It was all they knew,” he said. “There were several of them who just did not believe it.” Within a year or two, he said, several of them had died, not an uncommon occurrence— recent study by the Chicago Federal Reserve found that mortality rates increased dramatically for older, high-eniority men in the year after a layoff. “But it just—t didn’t freak us out,” Dwayne said. “For whatever reason, we kept on going.”

When Darla joined us, the two of them talked about how folks at Carrier discouraged them from dating. “Don’t get your honey where you get your money,” they said. Dwayne and Darla used to laugh about it, because things had worked out so well for them. But Darla had decided it wasn’t a good idea to work at the same plant after all. “I just don’t want to take the chance of us both losing our jobs at the same time again,” she said.

Beyond that one precaution, though, she didn’t worry too much. “I knew whether I had went to a job making $10 an hour or $7 an hour, I had to do what I had to do.” They’d scraped by on unemployment; surely they could scrape by on minimum wage. They lived on her dad’s land; they’d paid off their trailer; they didn’t have a lot of shiny new toys. “We don’t try to live above our means,” she said. “We’re not overwhelmed by a bunch of debt. So we know we can make it.”

I remembered a conversation I’d had with Herd Sullivan, the White County executive and a leader of the local chamber of commerce, in which I’d asked him about the future of American manufacturing.

“I don’t know what to tell you on that one, whether things ever get back to the same as they were or not,” he said, and then paused for a while. “Probably not. Probably not. This country maybe got a little more advanced over the world as far as income and there probably is a point where things will get a little more equalized, maybe. I don’t know.” Even with his enormous frame, he seemed depleted.

Dwayne and Darla Pendergraph live in that dystopic America, but without Sullivan’s sense of loss. Theirs is an America where you live modestly, dream modestly, hedge your bets, and plan for hard times. Where you go out hunting on your day off, and if you’re lucky, get some venison for the freezer. Where your eight-ear-ld darts around the green yard, picking leaves to feed the rabbits, the still afternoon air broken only by the distant bark of a dog, and the donkey braying out what sounds like a warning. 

http://www.vqronline.org/reporting-articles/2014/06/losing-sparta

Esther Kaplan

Esther Kaplan is editor of the Investigative Fund at the Nation Institute, an award-winning nonprofit journalism shop, and was the 2013 Josephine Patterson Albright fellow at the Alicia Patterson Foundation. She has written for the Nation, the American Prospect, the Village Voice, and other publications, and is the author of With God on Their Side: George W. Bush and the Christian Right (New Press, 2004).

David M. Barreda

David M. Barreda is the visuals editor for ChinaFile, an online news magazine, and was previously a photographer at the Miami Herald, the Rocky Mountain News, and the Valley News, and a photographer and multimedia producer at the San Jose Mercury News. He holds a master’s degree from the University of Missouri School of Journalism.

Ink technology underestimated in ATM and CiT

Mark Ellis

02/17/2016

Jens Eberhardt, Managing Partner and founder of Cash Infrastructure Projects and Services GmbH.

State of cash technology is proceeding 

Risk Management for cash supply chains shall assure secure and efficient processes. Ink-dye technology is a smart alternative to protect cash inventories and transport of cash instead of armoring and weapons. The implementation of ink technology systems will be a step forward to optimize cost of cash handling in more and more countries. The additional investment in ATM technology is justifyable as banks/IAD`s will redically reduce the risk of physical and gas attacks against ATMs. Improved cash logistics based on soft-skin vehicles with ink protection will increase profitability of CIT companies as well. The results are outlined in the latest feasibility studies.

Ink technology as future standard

Ink staining of banknotes is an accepted standard to protect cash inventories against criminal acts in many European countries. IBNS (Intelligent Banknote Neutralization System) technology activates ink staining of banknotes, if an unauthorized access to cash is detected. If banknotes inside ATM vaults or transport cassettes are protected with ink-dye, criminals will think twice before taking the risk. Sweden and Belgium introduced ink-dye protection beginning of this century with striking success. The unedifying growth in physical and explosive attacks towards ATMs and armored trucks was significantly reduced. Similar experiences were reported from France and Chile after the introduction of the IBNS technology.

So why are banks and CiTs so reluctant to implement ink technology?

Ink technology for ATM inventories

In Germany, ATM gas attacks are on a raise from 38 in 2011 to 89 in 2013, peaking at 132 attacks in 2015! But instead of investing in new ink technology the banks rather close ATM locations over night and accept to ruffle feathers of their customers. The investment cost into ink technology is apperently the prime reason of banks to lose sight of the risk and possible cost implications of a potential attack. Recent studies outline a monetary damage of $63’000 (international average) caused by an attack with explosives considering the collateral, but not the image damage for the bank. In Germany as of the higher cash inventories the monetary damage is reaching an average between 70’000€ and 90’000€.

A feasibility study of Cash InfraPro for Mexico comes to the result, that banks can improve their security in ATM locations by introducing IBNS technique. Even an investment in IBNS technology by only 25% of the locations - focussed on high risk areas - will result in a drop of attacks by 75% within next 18 months. Similar experiences are reported from Sweden and Chile. Translating these facts for a bank with an installed base of approx. 6’000 units, ATM attacks can be reduced from todays 400 to 50 per year resulting into a saving potential of $25MM for next two years. In consequence an investment in IBNS technology will amortize in 6 months considering initial investments, on-site installation cost as well as the maintenance of ink equipment during its lifespan, training of staff and adequate project management for planning and implementation. Overall a lucrative investment.

Ink technology for cash logistics

CiT companies are constantly challenged by customers to take over full liability for transport and cash processing for a competitive price. On the other hand risk management means to implement best practices to avoid external attacks and eliminating internal losses. The success of ink technology in “high risk” countries initiated a debate about the pros and cons of the IBNS technique vs. armored trucks plus weapons for the personnel. The main argument is that the investment for organizational reengineering overburdens the financial strengths of CiTs, which have no longtime commitment from their customer base. In addition the CiTs are struggling with the quality of installed ink systems, which shows a high failure rate in the past. This results in a trust-less commitment of CiT organizations for IBNS technology, even if a business case is feasible.

But CiTs neglect the competitive advantage of the latest IBNS generation. Swiss based company VILLIGER is leading todays quality benchmarks for IBNS technology. With continuous development of modular IBNS equipment with outstanding reliability and robustness in day to day operation, VILLIGER is able to bring failure rates in operation constantly below 1% p.a. Compared to the reported rates of more than 9% in Belgium a tremendous improvement with positive impact to Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) and Return of Investment (ROI) for VILLIGER customers, beside a lifetime warranty on the ink staining equipment. The transformation from “armored transport” to “soft-skin vehicles with IBNS” can get concluded and is feasible for developed as well as for emerging markets.

Improved business case for CiT logistics with ink technology
(for Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand)

The operational cost comparison outlines an extensive advantage for soft-skin vehicles vs. armored trucks in countries with higher wages. Depending on stop density per route the cost benefit allocates between 20% and 35% for Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand. Starting with similar investments in vehicles the benefits for IBNS protected soft-skin vehicles show effect in reduced personnel as the IBNS takes over the role of one crew member - protecting the truck during stops. In consequence routes with low stop density, e.g. express services or retail collection routes with long stop times at shopping malls will reflect highest cost benefits. Explicitly about 30% of the armored truck fleet could be replaced by soft-skin vehicle with IBNS. At least an improved risk mitigation through ink technologies lowers the insurance fees.
 

These results are irreversible around the world, there the traffic increases and traffic jams avoid high stop densities. Further light transport vehicles using IBNS contribute to “green technology initiatives” of respective CiT companies.  

Conclusion for smart IBNS implementation

Banks and CiTs recognize step by step the advantages of IBNS technology. First movers will have a competitive advantage due to beneficial cost structures. For risk mitigation ATMs should be by default equipped with IBNS technology. Ink technology is the only proven security element that protects cash inventories inside ATMs (stationary mode), and which can be enhanced for end-to-end transportation of cash. Successful market players set a high expectation on well-designed concepts and smart implementation with experienced project management. The reengineering of the processes with the qualified technology partner will be a success factor. The requirements for IBNS technology should assume i.e.:
 

  • best reliability ratios with proven failure rates in operation
  • multi-vendor technology for different ATM types and operation modes
  • IT integration with other security features, e.g. for ATMs with electronic vault locks, gas sensors, data management for cassette tracking and tracing
  • safe staining quality of banknotes according to Central Bank regulations 


Do you want to know more about IBNS technology and smart implementation, please contact us.

http://www.cashinfrapro.com/news/single-view/ink-technology-underestimated-in-atm-and-cit.html

Sources: 

ATMIA survey; Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung; Cash InfraPro feasibility studies 

Bring On the Cashless Future

Mark Ellis

JAN 31, 2016 5:00 PM EST

By Editorial Board

Cash had a pretty good run for 4,000 years or so. These days, though, notes and coins increasingly seem declasse: They're dirty and dangerousunwieldy and expensive, antiquated and so very analog.

Sensing this dissatisfaction, entrepreneurs have introduced hundreds of digital currencies in the past few years, of which bitcoin is only the most famous. Now governments want in: The People's Bank of China says it intends to issue a digital currency of its own. Central banks in Ecuador, the Philippines, the U.K. and Canada are mulling similar ideas. At least one company has sprung up to help them along.

Much depends on the details, of course. But this is a welcome trend. In theory, digital legal tender could combine the inventiveness of private virtual currencies with the stability of a government mint.

Most obviously, such a system would make moving money easier. Properly designed, a digital fiat currency could move seamlessly across otherwise incompatible payment networks, making transactions faster and cheaper. It would be of particular use to the poor, who could pay bills or accept payments online without need of a bank account, or make remittances without getting gouged.

For governments and their taxpayers, potential advantages abound. Issuing digital currency would be cheaper than printing bills and minting coins. It could improve statistical indicators, such as inflation and gross domestic product. Traceable transactions could help inhibit terrorist financing, money laundering, fraud, tax evasion and corruption.

The most far-reaching effect might be on monetary policy. For much of the past decade, central banks in the rich world have been hampered by what economists call the zero lower bound, or the inability to impose significantly negative interest rates. Persistent low demand and high unemployment may sometimes require interest rates to be pushed below zero -- but why keep money in a deposit whose value keeps shrinking when you can hold cash instead? With rates near zero, that conundrum has led policy makers to novel and unpredictable methods of stimulating the economy, such as large-scale bond-buying.

A digital legal tender could resolve this problem. Suppose the central bank charged the banks that deal with it a fee for accepting paper currency. In that way, it could set an exchange rate between electronic and paper money -- and by raising the fee, it would cause paper money to depreciate against the electronic standard. This would eliminate the incentive to hold cash rather than digital money, allowing the central bank to push the interest rate below zero and thereby boost consumption and investment. It would be a big step toward doing without cash altogether.

Digital legal tender isn't without risk. A policy that drives down the value of paper money would meet political resistance and -- to put it mildly -- would require some explaining. It could hold back private innovation in digital currencies. Security will be an abiding concern. Non-cash payments also tend to exacerbate the human propensity to overspend. And you don't have to be paranoid to worry about Big Brother tracking your financial life.

Governments must be alert to these problems -- because the key to getting people to adopt such a system is trust. A rule that a person's transaction history could be accessed only with a court order, for instance, might alleviate privacy concerns. Harmonizing international regulations could encourage companies to keep experimenting. And an effective campaign to explain the new tender would be indispensable.

If policy makers are wise and attend to all that, they just might convince the public of a surprising truth about cash: They're better off without it.

To contact the senior editor responsible for Bloomberg View’s editorials: David Shipley at davidshipley@bloomberg.net.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-01-31/bring-on-the-cashless-future

Cash remains tops in many consumer spending categories

Mark Ellis

Jan. 19, 2016

When they need to repay someone, 4 out of 5 Americans prefer to use cash.

This and other findings from a new Cardtronics Inc. study reveal that despite having a wide array of choices in payment methods, U.S. consumers continue to use cash for expenses ranging from P2P payments to convenience store purchases to tipping and more.

The survey also uncovered surprising facts about how millennials use cash, according to a press release from the company.

The study was compiled using results from a Cardtronics-sponsored survey conducted in late 2015 that polled more than 1,000 U.S. adults.  

"Our survey data clearly shows that in a competitive payments environment, cash is a predominant payment form and sits atop multiple spending categories," Cardtronics CMO Tom Pierce said in the release.

When asked what type of payment they'd used in various situations over the past year, respondents named a variety of methods, with cash ranking No. 1 in a number of scenarios. Consumers' first and second preferences were as follows:

  • paying someone back: cash, 78 percent; check, 18 percent
  • convenience store purchases: cash, 63 percent; debit, 41 percent
  • snacks away from home: cash, 67 percent; debit, 37 percent
  • grocery store: cash, 52 percent; debit, 51 percent
  • small business: cash, 49 percent; credit, 43 percent
  • restaurant: cash, 53 percent; credit, 48 percent
  • tipping: cash, 78 percent; credit, 27 percent

The Cardtronics survey findings also provided insights into how different demographic groups use cash.

"There is a myth in the marketplace that millennials have abandoned cash in favor of mobile and other digital payments," Pierce said. It's simply not true. ... Millennials take an open-minded view of payments and cash plays a pivotal role in their payment choice mix."

While more than half (57 percent) of millennials reported using a variety of payment methods, nearly half (45 percent) said that they're more likely to pay more with cash now than they did a few years ago.

The survey also found that women are more likely than men (39 percent vs. 29 percent) to use cash as a means to manage their budget.

 

http://www.atmmarketplace.com/news/cash-remains-tops-in-many-consumer-spending-categories/?utm_source=Email_marketing&utm_campaign=EMNAAMC01202016&campaigner=1&utm_medium=HTMLEmail

Big Banks to America’s Firms: We Don’t Want Your Cash Profit-crunching low interest rates have banks judging cash too costly to keep

Mark Ellis

By JULIET CHUNG and SARAH KROUSE

Updated Oct. 18, 2015 8:50 p.m. ET

U.S. banks are going to new lengths to ward off a surprising threat to their financial health: big cash deposits.

State Street Corp., the Boston bank that manages assets for institutional investors, for the first time has begun charging some customers for large dollar deposits, people familiar with the matter said. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., the nation’s largest bank by assets, has cut unwanted deposits by more than $150 billion this year, in part by charging fees.

The developments underscore a deepening conflict over cash. Many businesses have large sums on hand and opportunities to profitably invest it appear scarce. But banks don’t want certain kinds of cash either, judging it costly to keep, and some are imposing fees after jawboning customers to move it.

The banks’ actions are driven by profit-crunching low interest rates and regulations adopted since the financial crisis to gird banks against funding disruptions.

The latest fees center on large sums deemed risky by regulators, sometimes dubbed hot-money deposits thought likely to flee during times of crises. Finalized last September and overseen by the Federal Reserve and other regulators, the rule involving the liquidity coverage ratio forces banks to hold high-quality liquid assets, such as central bank reserves and government debt, to cover projected deposit losses over 30 days. Banks must hold reserves of as much as 40% against certain corporate deposits and as much as 100% against some deposits from hedge funds. 

“At some point you wonder whether there will be a shortage of financial institutions willing to take on these balances,” said Kelli Moll, head of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP’s hedge-fund practice in New York, saying that where to hold cash has become an increasing topic of conversation as hedge funds are shown the door by longtime banking counterparties.

The push comes as the globe is awash in cash, reflecting soft economic growth and low interest rates that limit investment. Some asset managers have been increasing the amount of cash they are holding in their portfolios, in part because of an increased focus by the Securities and Exchange Commission on liquidity management in mutual funds.

Domestic deposits at U.S. banks in the second quarter hit $10.59 trillion, up 38% from five years earlier, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. data show. Loans outstanding at U.S. banks as a share of total deposits tumbled to 71% from 78% in 2010 and 92% in mid-2007, before the financial crisis, the data show.

Jerome Schneider, head of Pacific Investment Management Co.’s short-term and funding desk, which advises corporate and institutional clients, said that as a result of the bank actions, he and his customers have discussed as cash alternatives boosting investments in U.S. Treasury bonds, ultrashort-duration bond funds and money-market funds.

When it comes to cash, Mr. Schneider said, “Clients have been put on warning.”

Auctions for one- and three-month Treasury bills last week sold bills at zero yields, reflecting outsize demand for the securities.

Few banks disclose how much in “nonoperating” deposits they hold. Credit Suisse Group AG analysts estimated in August that the top four U.S. banks by assets hold roughly $650 billion in those deposits that require the highest levels of reserves.

Banks are struggling to generate returns for investors. A low-interest-rate environment squeezes bank profits by narrowing the spread between the rate they lend at and their borrowing, or funding, cost.

Some analysts have been predicting rates would rebound, likely boosting bank profits, but that hasn’t happened. This year, slowing growth in China and recessions in some major emerging-market nations have dimmed expectations that the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates this year. 

The KBW Nasdaq Bank Index of large commercial banks has dropped about 9% since July as rate-increase expectations waned.

Deposit fees are particularly significant at State Street because its primary business is custodying client assets, including holding cash for clients rather than seeking to lend out those funds, as other banks typically do. 

State Street customers earlier were told that fees were possible on accounts whose nonoperational balances had grown, the people familiar with the matter said. There is no minimum deposit size that triggers the fee, which varies and is applied case by case to new and existing clients, the people said.

“The persistence of the current rate environment requires that we take action consistent with prudent financial management with certain accounts that continually maintain significant excessive cash balances,” State Street said in a statement to The Wall Street Journal.

BNY Mellon and Northern Trust haven’t yet begun charging to hold clients’ cash, people familiar with the matter said. A Bank of New York spokesman said the bank hasn’t ruled out doing so in the future. The fees at J.P. Morgan don’t apply to clients of its custody business, a person familiar with the bank said.

Northern Trust has been taking a “transaction by transaction approach” to accepting very large deposits from clients approaching the bank, said Chief Financial Officer S. Biff Bowman on the bank’s second-quarter earnings call in July. A Northern Trust spokesman declined to say whether charges were a possibility in the future.

State Street and others have charged clients on some large euro deposits for more than a year, reflecting a negative interest rate on overnight deposits at the European Central Bank.

In 2011, BNY Mellon set plans to charge a small number of clients for holding their cash, reflecting in part a large flow of deposits triggered by investors’ flight to safety that summer. The bank rolled back the plan without imposing fees after some clients pulled money.

Since last year, Bank of America Corp. has told some institutional clients that they will need to move their deposits or pay to keep them at the bank, people familiar with the matter said. Top executives decided to approach clients that didn’t do other business with the bank.

—Christina Rexrode contributed to this article.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/big-banks-to-americas-companies-we-dont-want-your-cash-1445161083

Does virtual currency's past dictate its future?

Mark Ellis

by Tom Harper, president and CEO, Networld Media Group

After almost 20 years in the payments industry, I've learned to appreciate its history. That's why, with the growing popularity of virtual currency over the past couple years, I decided to do some digging into its past.

What I found changed my thinking on where the cryptocurrency market is going.

A turbulent path

Do you remember Digicash? It started 25 years ago as an anonymous cryptocurrency. It partnered with major European banks and created some of the technology still used for encrypting transactions. The problem was that banks wouldn't allow anonymous accountholders, and Digicash went bankrupt after eight years.

In '94, CyberCash made a splash with a $300 million public offering that jumped 79 percent on its first day. But the company lost millions as it tried to market itself as an anonymous payments alternative to credit cards, and it fell victim to Y2K and other technical problems. It went bankrupt in 2001, and part of it was sold to Verisign, which itself later sold to PayPal.

A company called Beenz sprouted up in '98 and withered in 2001. It was a global online couponing program calling itself "virtual currency" and it raised $100 million from big-name investors. It failed because not enough Beenz (Beenzes?) made it into circulation.

Flooz had an even shorter lifespan — from '99 to '01. This online currency's claim to fame TV advertising that featured Whoopi Goldberg. But it sank when cyberthieves in Russia and the Philippines stole hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of coupons.

Internetcash.com lived and died during the same time, dissolving during the dot-com collapse. The company developed Web-based electronic cash that verified transactions without using credit cards.

E-Bullion launched in '01, backed by real-world gold and silver and complete with its own currency exchange. The service managed to survive for eight years before shutting down without warning when owner James Fayed was arrested for running an illegal money transfer business — and for orchestrating the murder of his wife and business partner, Pamela Fayed. He was found guilty of paying three hit men to stab her to death and is currently sitting on death row. All of E-Bullion's assets were seized by the government, and users wound up empty-pocketed.

And then there was E-gold, which emerged a few years after E-Bullion, and was also backed by gold and silver. When its founder was convicted of money laundering in 2009, the whole thing shut down.

Launched in '03 in Toronto, Dexit was a rechargeable, contactless, stored-value smart key tag used for electronic payments. Although it formed several partnerships with banks, retailers and mobile companies, the currency never caught on, and in 2006, Dexit removed its payment terminals from stores and gave back all funds.

Short memories, big dreams

The consumer media seem to have forgotten this history. Just consider the following quote from The Wall Street Journal on corporate curiosity over bitcoin:

The interest is most evident on Wall Street, where there's a sense that the bank-dominated, centralized pathways through which international finance passes are long overdue for the kind of Internet-driven cost savings that have affected other industries. (MoneyBeat, March 30, 2015)

On the contrary, Internet-driven cost savings in finance, particularly in the payments space, is anything but "long overdue."

Consider Web-enabled ATMs and POS devices, mobile payments, online bill pay, cross-border remittance, dynamic currency conversion and a host of other payment innovations that leverage the Internet.

I could go on about the rampant lack of technical and historical understanding in the tech media, of all places. But let me take you back even further to the mid-1930s.

When cards were the Next Big Thing

This was the era when card-based payments first reached the masses. Department stores, restaurants and other merchants issued their own charge cards, which doubled as loyalty cards. Customers received credit from the store and paid off the balance every month.

In 1946, Flatbush National Bank of Brooklyn issued one of the first bank credit cards in its "Charge-It" program between bank customers and local merchants.

In 1950, Diners Club issued its first credit card in the U.S.  Frank McNamara, the card's creator, wanted to help salespeople schmooze their clients at dinner. A customer could eat without cash at any restaurant that accepted the card. Diners Club would pay the restaurant and the cardholder would repay Diners Club.

The company went competition-free for eight years, until American Express issued its first card in 1958, the same year that Bank of America issued BankAmericard (which eventually became Visa).

By the early '60s, more companies offered credit cards, advertising them as a time-saving device rather than a form of credit. American Express and MasterCard became huge successes overnight.

Bitcoin: Toward new lands

I believe bitcoin is just another stop on the way to an exciting destination — and that we will get to this destination because of bitcoin.

No other digital currency history has stirred up so much venture capital and media madness. There seems to be a sort of rebellion among the digerati, a revolutionary fervor reminiscent of other countercultural movements. In online and social media, there's a sense that we're at the start of a new "Big Thing."

Juniper Research finds that the number of active bitcoin users worldwide will reach 4.7 million by the end of 2019, up from just more than 1.3 million last year. I call that a "Big Thing."

The Digital Currency Council reports that in the past 12 months, almost 1,000 new merchants began accepting bitcoin each week. That's huge, too.

Many corporate giants are investing millions in their quest to capture the digital payments flag. Companies such as Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, PayPal, Amazon, Alibaba, Google, MasterCard, Visa and others are vying to be the company to bring virtual and mobile money to the masses.

Five thoughts on the future

Following are five quick virtual currency reality checks that give us a roadmap to perhaps the next five years:

  1. Regulatory and tax issues are a big concern for merchants. Because laws are just starting to evolve, many changes and updates are coming. Now that California has legalized virtual currency use, we'll likely see more loosening up by other states.
  2. Bitcoin's price volatility must be solved. The swings in bitcoin value have made merchants and consumers nervous. Some startups have begun mitigating the risk, but volatility is the very nature of bitcoin, and this leaves the door open for more stable virtual currencies.
  3. Most early-adopter merchants are attracting younger demographics by promoting bitcoin acceptance. This adds to a brand's cachet with millennials, whether they actually use bitcoin or not. If a store accepts virtual currency, the thinking goes, it must be cool.
  4. Nearly half of bitcoin exchanges have failed since 2010. Can you imagine living in a world where half of the banks had gone under in the past five years? It says something that bitcoin has survived and continues to grow, but it also begs caution. We're in the Wild West of virtual currency, where anything can happen.
  5. Virtual currency as a category will catch on when consumer comfort with it and desire for it reach critical mass. Isn't that true for any new technology? When consumers "get" a new tech product and see an obvious use case, mass adoption erupts. Just look at the iPod, followed by iTunes and then the iPhone. History is replete with successful new products that at one time seemed unnecessary.

No doubt our financial future includes virtual currency — 25 years of history has established this. But how the newest iteration of digital money will be tracked, acquired and spent are all fair questions.

What could be cooler than new payment rails built on an open-source, immutable ledger? The bitcoin-blockchain combo is an exciting technological breakthrough that promises to transcend current closed-loop payment models — even if bitcoin gives way to other kinds of currency.

Now that a new wave of financial innovation has been born, and a zealous user group has emerged, the next chapter of virtual currency's history is becoming reality.

Tom Harper is CEO of Networld Media Group, the publisher of ATM Marketplace, Mobile Payments Today and Virtual Currency Today. He a founding director and past chairman of the ATM Industry Association and the coauthor of "Cash Box: The Invention and Globalization of the ATM."

http://www.atmmarketplace.com/articles/does-virtual-currencys-past-dictate-its-future-2/?utm_source=NetWorld%20Alliance&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EMNAAMC05112015

Banks Increasingly Refuse Cash Withdrawals – Switzerland Joins the Fun

Mark Ellis

 By Submitted by Pater Tenebrarum 04/26/2015 

The war on cash is proliferating globally. It appears that the private members of the world’s banking cartels are increasingly joining the fun, even if it means trampling on the rights of their customers.

Yesterday we came across an article at Zerohedge, in which Dr. Salerno of the Mises Institute notes that JP Morgan Chase has apparently joined the “war on cash”, by “restricting the use of cash in selected markets, restricting borrowers from making cash payments on credit cards, mortgages, equity lines and auto loans, as well as prohibiting storage of cash in safe deposit boxes”.

This reminded us immediately that we have just come across another small article in the local European press (courtesy of Dan Popescu), in which a Swiss pension fund manager discusses his plight with the SNB’s bizarre negative interest rate policy. In Switzerland this policy has long ago led to negative deposit rates at the commercial banks as well. The difference to other jurisdictions is however that negative interest rates have become so pronounced, that it is by now worth it to simply withdraw one’s cash and put it into an insured vault.

Having realized this, said pension fund manager, after calculating that he would save at least 25,000 CHF per year on every CHF 10 m. deposit by putting the cash into a vault, told his bank that he was about to make a rather big withdrawal very soon. After all, as a pension fund manager he has a fiduciary duty to his clients, and if he can save money based on a technicality, he has to do it.

A Legally Murky Situation – but Collectivism Wins Out

What happened next is truly stunning. Surely everybody is aware that Switzerland regularly makes it to the top three on the list of countries with the highest degree of economic freedom. At the same time, it has a central bank whose board members are wedded to Keynesian nostrums similar to those of other central banks. This is no wonder, as nowadays, economists are trained in an academic environment that is dripping with the most vicious statism imaginable. As a result, withdrawing one’s cash is evidently regarded as “interference with the SNB’s monetary policy goals”. Thus SRF reports:

“Since the national bank has introduced negative interest rates, pension funds in the country are in trouble. Banks are passing the negative rates on to them. This results in the saved pension money shrinking, instead of producing a return. A number of pension funds are therefore thinking about keeping their money in an external vault instead of leaving it in bank accounts. 

One fund manager showed that for every CHF 10 m. in pension money, his fund would save CHF 25,000 – in spite of the costs involved in vault rent, cash transportation and other expenses.

However, as our research team has found out, there is one bank that refuses to pay out money in such large amounts. The editorial team has gotten hold of a letter from a large Swiss bank in which it tells its customer, a pension fund:

“We are sorry, that within the time period specified, no solution corresponding to your expectations could be found.

Bank expert Hans Geiger says that this “is most definitely not legal”. The pension fund has a sight account, and has the contractual right to dispose of its money on demand.

Indeed, although we all know that fractionally reserved banks literally don’t have the money their customers hold in demand deposits, the contract states clearly that customers may withdraw their funds at any time on demand. The maturity of sight deposits is precisely zero.

So how come the unnamed “large bank” (they should have named it, just to see what happens…) is so bold as to break the law by refusing to pay out funds in a demand deposit? Note here that it is indeed breaking the law, as there is nothing in Swiss legislation that states that banks are allowed to refuse or delay servicing withdrawals from demand deposits upon request.

The answer is that it has probably received a “directive” from the Swiss National Bank. Note here that these directives are not legally binding. SFR further:

“The president of the pension funds association ASIP, Hanspeter Konrad, has been irritated for weeks that pension funds are suffering from negative interest rates. He says: “We simply cannot understand that the banks are butting in here”. Konrad suspects that the National Bank is exerting its influence.

Indeed, the SNB confirms that it doesn’t like to see the hoarding of cash to circumvent its negative interest rate policy. “The National Bank has therefore recommended to the banks to approach withdrawal demands in a restrictive manner.”

Hans Giger, professor eremitus at the University of Zurich, says to this that the question how far the SNB can go is legally complicated. While the SNB is not allowed to influence the contract between a bank and a pension fund, it can however “issue directives to the banks in the collective interest of the Swiss economy”. What banks do with the SNB’s directives is however up to them.

In other words, large depositors in Swiss banks have now become victims of collectivism. Collectivism is of course precisely what informs all central planning endeavors. Obviously, property rights count for nothing if the central planners can revoke them at the drop of a hat.

Conclusion

It is undoubtedly a huge red flag when in one of the countries considered to be a member of the “highest economic freedom in the world” club, commercial banks are suddenly refusing their customers access to their cash. This money doesn’t belong to the banks, and it doesn’t belong to the central bank either.

If this can happen in prosperous Switzerland, based on some nebulous notion of the “collective good”, which its unelected central planners can arbitrarily determine and base decisions upon, it can probably happen anywhere. Consider yourself warned. As the modern day fiat money system inevitably cruises toward its final denouement, individual rights will come increasingly under attack as the world’s ruling elites and centrally directed banking cartels begin to batten down the hatches.

Better continue stacking, and keep a pile of this within grabbing distance – after all, it can be purchased at a generous discount these days.

Fighting the "War on Terror " by Banning Cash

Mark Ellis

MARCH 22, 2015Joseph T. Salerno

It was just a matter of time before Western governments used the trumped up "War on Terror" as an excuse to drastically ratchet up the very real war on the use of cash and personal privacy that they are waging against their own citizens.   Taking advantage of public anxiety in the wake of the attacks on Charlie Hebdo and a Jewish supermarket, France has taken the first step.  It seems the terrorists involved partially financed these attacks by cash, as well as by consumer loans and the sale of counterfeit goods. What a shockeroo!  The terrorists used CASH to purchase some of the stuff they needed--no doubt these murderers were also shod and clothed and used  cell phones, cars, and public sidewalks during the planning and execution of their mayhem.   Why not restrict their use?  A naked , barefoot terrorist without communications is surely less effective than a fully clothed and equipped one.  Despite the arrant absurdity of blaming cash and financial privacy for these crimes,  French Finance Minister Michel Sapin brazenly stated  that it was necessary to "fight against the use of cash and anonymity in the French economy."  He then announced extreme and despotic measures to further restrict the use of cash by French residents and to spy on and pry into their financial affairs.

These measures, which  will be implemented in September 2015, include prohibiting  French residents from making cash payments of more than 1,000 euros, down from the current limit of  3,000 euros.  Given the parlous state of the stagnating French economy the limit for foreign tourists on currency payments will  remain higher, at 10,000 euros down from the current limit of 15,000 euros. The threshold below which a French resident is  free to convert euros into other currencies without having to show an identity card will be slashed from the current level of 8,000 euros to 1,000 euros.  In addition any cash deposit or withdrawal of more than 10,000 euros during a single month will be reported to the French anti-fraud and money laundering agency Tracfin.  French authorities will also have to be notified of any freight transfers within the EU exceeding 10,000 euros, including checks, pre-paid cards, or gold.  

http://mises.org/blog/fighting-war-terror-banning-cash