50% Income Tax

The increase in the rate of income tax for the high earners seems to be the most talked about topic of this year's budget. The tax applies to all those who earn £150,000 or more. Add to that the National Insurance contribution and it equates to more than half of one's salary. The aim of this rise, according to the chancellor Alistair Darling, is to contribute to the Treasury coffers to make up for the huge amounts of public sector borrowings, £175 billion this year itself.

But it looks like the aim of this move is to gather support from the majority of the public who seem to hold all those who earn huge amounts of money responsible for all the mess that the economy is in. A poll by the Times newspaper shows that 57% of the respondents back this increase in tax. The accountancy and tax experts will definitely see a rise in business since they will have many clients asking them to look for loop holes allowing them to dodge the tax. And who will then pick up the bill? The hard working majority of course.

A lot of measures have been introduced in the budget to help people, like the scheme for the 18-25 year olds, £2000 car scrappage scheme, ISA allowance, etc. But its one thing to announce something and another thing to actually implement it.

But, its not whats in the budget that's important, but what wasn't included in the budget. If the money coming in is less than the money going out, it may be OK to borrow money in the short term to cover that deficit. But somewhere along the line, cuts in spending will have to be made. There is no clear indication where those cuts will be made.

Spyware Doctor FREE Scan

To make a start, how about the MPs themselves cutting back on the expenses that they claim from the tax payer. I mean claiming back 88p for a bath plug, how ridiculous is that. Its like almost mocking the tax payers. It is understandable that an MP from, say Newcastle, should be able to stay in London when performing his duties and expect the tax payer to pay for that. But that doesn't mean buying a second home and pocketing the profit made from it. Its means lodging in a hotel during the stay. And if the MPs really care for the taxpayers, why not take a pay cut? Its not a lot to ask. Many workers have taken a pay cut in companies so that their colleagues can keep their jobs.

The Treasury estimates that it will spend £119 billion of the £671 billion on Health services this year. How about asking those who drink excessively and then take up the resources of the NHS when their bodies cant take it to pay for the service. How about allocating resources to curb rising obesity so that money doesn't have to be spent on treating illnesses arising from it. Distributing garden tools and seeds across the schools would provide physical exercise and free produce as well.

People who currently receive help paying their fuel bills could be provided with subsidies allowing them to purchase energy efficient appliances such as electric kettles. This would reduce the energy used which would reduce the bills which would reduce the amount payed by the Government. Subsidies over 50% could also be provided to buy solar panels which would make homes that receive fuel allowance self sufficient which means that they wouldn't be requiring the help from the Government.
There are many other ways that the money can be spent efficiently by the Government. Asking a group of over-paid Government consultants isn't going to help, ask the public for ideas. I am sure that a lot of constructive ideas will emerge.

In hindsight, if the Government had spent their money wisely when it was coming in and saved for a rainy day, there might have been a bit of buffer that the Chancellor could have used. We instead ended up with no savings and a massive hurricane instead of a rainy day. The budget doesn't seem to be based on sound economics, but on hope and a prayer. If the Chancellors own figures are to be believed from last year, we should be in a recovery sometime soon. But instead, we are still in a deep recession. Yet, he hopes the economy will grow by 3.5% in two years time. How? Manufacturing is affected despite the weak pound and the financial sector is not as big as it used to be. Who will then lead the recovery?

Even if the figures are somehow achieved, it is still better to plan for a slow growth and be pleasantly surprised by the massive growth than to plan/hope for massive growth and then get it spectacularly wrong.

Free .uk domain names with 123-reg web hosting, InstantSite and Ecommerce packages Buy Now!

Budget 2009
BizEasy

Market Research

Watching the candidates of The Apprentice talk about themselves misleads one into feeling that not only are they the best, but that they are the best of the best of the best when it comes to running a business and that Sir Alan Sugar should feel lucky that they are willing to work for him. Yet, when it comes to doing a task, they forget the most basic of business concepts.

As seems to be the norm these days, the task involved designing a portable piece of fitness equipment for, surprise surprise, the cash strapped consumer. It was clear from the beginning that the whole task was about the product. It is no surprise then that team Empire, which came up with a Gym-in-a-box idea failed to sell even one unit to two of the three retailers they pitched to. The candidates failed to realise that the perfect product isn't one that tickles their own fancy, or one which their family would like to buy, but one which addresses the needs of the consumer, hence filling a possible gap in the market.

Both teams failed to conduct even basic market research to help them develop their product. Team Empire should have realised that creativity wasn't their strongest bit and rather than sit around the table bouncing useless ideas of each other, they should have sent two people to the local gym to talk to the members there about the kinds of products they would like to buy and what price they were willing to pay for it. Another team of around two people could have scoured the internet looking at the products that their competitors were selling at that price level. After all, the task was about designing a product for consumers who were finding the gym membership too expensive and were looking for low cost alternatives. Who better to ask about the product than those who are going to buy it in the end.

All your BBC Favourites from the BBC Shop.com

Their lack of research was also evident in their pricing strategy. It felt as if they had just closed their eyes and picked the figure of £29.99 randomly for their product. At that price, there are numerous alternatives in the market which are certainly better looking if not better value for money. Even the promotional material, including the pictures, looked like something that came out of a secondary school student's Media Studies project.

Although team Ingnite failed to do any market research either, they still won the task and were offered a deal of exclusivity by John Lewis. One of the reasons why their product succeeded was perhaps because it was simple. Their opponents product was a case of "Jack of all Trades, Master of None", like a new mobile phone which offers to make you a cup of tea and take your dog for a walk. Ignite's product was also more pleasing to look at and truly portable.

Two days to come up with a concept, build a prototype and pitch a product is indeed a tall order and both the teams did that with a lot of patience and commitment. Was firing Majid the right decision? Its not for us to decide. After all, this isn't a talent show, its a long job interview and Sir Alan should keep those whom he feels would be right for his organisation.

The Apprentice on BBC iPlayer

BizEasy

Ryanair

Ryanair, it seems, is very good at attracting negative publicity every time it comes up with a cost-cutting measure to "decrease the air fare for all its customers". Its latest one is a plan to charge its passengers £1 for each time they want to use the in-flight toilet.

It doesn't look as if it really makes commercial sense for Ryanair though. After all, it doesn't give free drinks on board its flights, passengers are expected to pay for them. That means that consumption of liquids is decreased in the first place, which means less number of people would be using the toilets anyways. Or as Rochelle Turner from Which?Holiday pointed out, passengers may end up buying less over-priced drinks on board because they will then be charged to relieve themselves of it. This would make the move counter-productive.

Latest deals on lastminute.com

I am sure it would cost a considerable sum of money to install a coin slot machine in each of its toilets on each of its flights. How many £1 paying people would it take for them to cover that cost? And if the whole idea is to lower the air fare, how much would it lower it? Its not as if the maintenance cost of the toilets depends on the number of times it is used. The toilets would cost the same if they were used ten times or just twice. The only variable cost, if Ryanair is really counting its pennies, would be stuff like the toilet paper and soap. So why not just save their passengers the hassle and the negative publicity and offer them for free, like what all airlines do currently?

Ryanair's spokesman was quick to reassure that they had no immediate plan to implement this, but felt that their move was justified since passengers were already used to paying for toilets at bus and train stations. Well, toilets at bus and train stations are used by more people than a toilet on a plane. And in addition to generating enough revenue for maintenance, another reason why passengers are charged at stations is to discourage misuse of the facilities.

Last week Ryanair announced that by the end of this year, it would be replacing the check-in counters at the airports with manned baggage drop-in area. All customers instead would be expected to check-in online. According to Ryanair, about 75% of its customers are checking-in online currently. In that case, it does make commercial sense to get rid of check-in counters since only 25% of the passengers are using it. The cost saved on staff could genuinely help reduce the fares.

Thomson Holidays & Flights - Click Here

Ryanair is by now used to being in the news for all the wrong reasons. The most recent one being its staff engaging in an unpleasant exchange with a blogger who thought he had found a bug on Ryanair's website. Rather than apologize to the blogger, Ryanair instead said that they had no time for "idiot bloggers". Idiot or not, that is not the best way for an organisation to talk to its stakeholders. Of course, this all wont result in passengers suddenly switching Ryanair for another airline. Far from it. In these though times, more people would be attracted to the cheap price and not the customer service. Still, those within Ryanair that come up with the cost cutting measures should spend some time now pondering over their public relations.

"Spend a pound to spend a penny" said Michael O'Leary yesterday. If they don't learn where to draw the line for the cost cutting, it may end up being "Penny wise and Pound fool" for Ryanair.

BizEasy

Deposits Fall by £2.3 billion

According to the figures released by the BBA (British Bankers Association), deposits in the high street banks fell by £2.3 billion in January alone.

One of the reasons for this is that people who have lost their jobs are having to use their savings to supplement the loss of their income. Even those who are still employed, but have been forced to reduce their working hours or accept a pay cut, have to withdraw from their savings to meet the shortfall. Those who bought houses when the prices were at their peak are having to use their savings to bridge the gap when their mortgage nears renewal. Many are also dipping into their savings to pay off their credit card bills from Christmas and other unsecured loans.

Also, with the base rate at 1% most high street banks are offering almost no significant rewards to savers for their money. There is almost no incentive for people to save. So, those with savings are looking for alternative forms of investment, something that will at least give them a rate of return above or at least matching the inflation rate.

Free Audiobook Downloads - 14 day Free Trial

A typical banking model is banks borrowing money from savers in the form of deposits and lending that money out to borrowers in the form of mortgages, loans, credit cards, overdraft, etc. The bank charges the borrower a fee, in the form of interest, for the sum of money that is lent out. The bank gives the depositor a reward, in the form of interest, for allowing it to use its money. The fee that the bank charges the borrower is slightly higher than the rate which it pays out to its depositor, and the difference is pocketed by the bank.

Banks are still finding it difficult to borrow from the money markets. And even if they can, its going to be really expensive, which means that the extra cost would have to be passed on to the borrower. So, if deposits are decreasing and savers are withdrawing more money, banks have very little to fall back on. Also, savers have, to a great extent, lost faith with the banks. They will no doubt feel that their hard earned cash is being used to pay bonuses and reward failure.

Reliable web hosting from Yahoo! Web Hosting - 25% off for a limited time!

It seems like banks will have to go a long way in winning the trust of the consumer and offer more than the paltry rewards to attract their savings. Without the deposits, they'll find it really hard to fund the lending. Unless, of course, the name of the bank is Northern Rock which has access to the pockets of the taxpayers. Northern Rock was nationalised and was lent some £28bn by the Government last year. It payed back most of it, around £18bn, by forcing its existing customers to move to other providers. This week it pledged that it would offer new mortgages which will be worth around £14bn over the next two years. It most certainly wont be anywhere near the 100% it used to offer.

The overall sentiment seems to be that if bankers want their customers' money, they will have to work really hard to get it, because the customers would rather spend it on themselves than paying the bankers to spend it for them.

BizEasy

Throwaway Fashion

The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has launched a "Sustainable Clothing Action Plan" co-inciding with the London Fashion Week to highlight the increasing problem of "fast fashion". Apparently, UK consumers buy around two tonnes of clothes every year, and throw away a massive 1.2 million tonnes of them every year.

Rapidly changing fashion trends means that many consumers have to keep on buying new clothes to keep their wardrobe up-to-date and to compete with their friends and peers. This means that new clothes are worn only a few times and as trends change, are then consigned to the bin.

Of the two million tonnes of clothing bought every year, only 300,000 are recycled. If the majority of the clothes are worn only a couple of times, surely more of them can be recycled. Due to the current economic crisis, donations to charities has dropped. Consumers are cutting back on their spending. If more clothes that are in a good condition are donated to the charity shops, they can then sell them on to consumers looking for a bargain which results in a win-win situation. The charity shops get their revenue, consumers can bag a bargain and there are less clothes ending up in the landfill site.

One of the reasons why consumers can afford to keep on buying new clothes and then throw them away is partly due to ready availability of cheap fashionable clothes on the high street. However, many fail to see the real story behind the cheap price tag. An investigation by BBC's Panorama last year revealed how Primark's suppliers used factories with unfair standards and also child labour to provide the consumers on the high street with cheap fashionable clothing.

Jane Milne, who is the business environment director of the British Retail Consortium, said that retailers should be "applauded, not criticised, for providing customers with affordable clothing, particularly during these tough economic times". Sure, if the low prices are due to a better, more efficient production technique. But not if someone less unfortunate than us halfway across the world is subsidising the cost for us by being exploited and made to work in unfair conditions.

BizEasy

Unemployment nears 2 million

According to the figures released by the Office of National Statistics, unemployment in the UK rose to 1.97 million this January. This is marginally short of the 2 million predicted by many economists. But with the string of job cuts announced by many businesses like Barrats, Virgin Atlantic, JJB Sports, Royal Mail, this year, there is no doubt that the unemployment figures will bypass 2 million very shortly.

Not to be out done, RBS is doing its bit to add to the unemployment figures. It announced this week that it would be cutting 2,300 jobs. Yet, it is planning a £1 billion bonus package. Why? To retain their talent or they will go elsewhere. Where would they go, when most banks are reducing their staff numbers? When unemployment is increasing, to have a decent job itself is a bonus. Another reason being given to justify a bonus is to reward their staff who have worked hard. No doubt, hard work should be rewarded. But not using the £20 billion lifeline it has received from the taxpayers. And if bank employees should receive a bonus, shouldn’t the doctors and the nurses and the teachers and the army personnel and many others receive a bonus for their hard work as well?

To use the public’s money, which was supposed to be lent to the businesses, to remunerate staff is insulting to those who have lost their jobs and those whose returns on their savings have been eroded. If the head of the banks are indeed impressed and overwhelmed by the hard work of their employees, then they must reward them by putting their hands into their own deep pockets, not the taxpayer’s.

NatWest, owned by RBS, in recent months has launched a MoneySense advice campaign across its branches advising its customers how to manage their money and their debt. This is rather amusing. The very banks that lent more money than the value of their deposit base are trying to teach their customers how not to spend beyond their means. Perhaps the top executives at RBS and other banks should take some time off their busy schedule and pop down to their local NatWest branch and learn a thing or two about managing money and cutting their costs.

BizEasy

Donate to WSPA here

Comet to charge suppliers for shelf space

According to the Financial Times, electronics retailer Kesa, who owns Comet, has asked its suppliers to pay up to £15,000 for the pleasure of having just one of their product lines displayed on Comet's shelves. Why? Well, according to Comet's commercial director Bob Darke, its because of the tough economic times.

Comet must be stocking 100s if not 1000s of products. Do they really think that all the suppliers will pay a huge fee for each and every product displayed? They would have to sell hundreds of units of each product range just to make up this fee, let alone pay their direct and indirect costs. This would be a great strategy if (a) the economy was booming and (b) the amount of product ranges out stripped the amount of shelf space available. It would allow Comet to stock the most profitable product and earn a nice fee at the same time. Sadly though, the economy is not booming nor is it likely that suppliers are dying to have their products displayed on Comet's shelves. Suppliers may in fact be forced to increase their prices to meet this fee otherwise it would add to the heavy losses that they already would be suffering from or they might even have to withdraw their product ranges entirely.

In an economy which is officially in a recession, increasing one's prices is not exactly the best strategy. Everyday there are news of more and more job cuts. Even those who have jobs are spending less because they are worried that they might lose their jobs. At such times, consumers are likely to focus more on necessities and forget about the luxuries. And plasma tvs and mp3 players are not exactly as important as bread and milk such that people will be forced to buy them.

Kesa is not alone, almost all retailers are affected by the tough economic times. Many supermarkets deal with it by squeezing every last penny out of their supplier's profit margins. Others buy on credit and exert their purchasing power by paying their suppliers after a long time. The supplier has no choice, he has to either accept it or lose the order. But I dont think anybody, not lest at this time, would charge their suppliers for shelf space.

I think Kesa's move is akin to digging one's own grave. It might as well just hand over its market share on a silver platter to its rivals.

Gas bills too big? Switch with Which? The independent energy service you can trust.
BizEasy

Hidden Cost of Redundancies

The number of people unemployed is rising everyday due to firms going bankrupt or businesses making some of their staff redundant as part of a "cost-cutting measure". However, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) warned yesterday that redundancies could in fact prove to be a false economy for businesses.

It estimates that the actual cost of redundancy could reach up to £16,000 for each employee made redundant. This figure takes into account the redundancy payment and the costs involved in recruiting and training replacement staff. But, redundancies can also lead to lower staff morale because when employees see some of their colleagues being made redundant, they fear about the security of their own jobs. This leads to a drop in their productivity which in some cases would lead to the business losing its competitive edge over a period of time. The CIPD's figures doesn't take these factors into account.

For most businesses redundancies are the most straight forward ways of cutting down costs in the short term. Less staff means less wages to be paid each month. Although analysts and bankers and politicians cannot agree on how long it will take for the economic condition to improve, they all agree that it will improve in the near future.

When the situation does improve, a business should be in a position to meet the upsurge in demand if it wants a share of the increasing market. This does not only mean having enough number of staff, but staff that are properly trained and equipped with necessary skills to help them do their jobs to the best of their abilities and be efficient. So, when employees are made redundant, they take the skills that they have acquired at the firm's expense with them and this is another indirect cost to the business.

When the economy is booming, there is demand for staff from businesses who want to grow. For those businesses that require staff with special skills, this could prove to be a costly affair because people with those specific skills might be hard to find. Also, if people with a particular skill are in high demand, the business would have to be prepared to pay a higher salary or offer lucrative perks or else the prospective employee might end up working for the competitor.

Most businesses have a Human Resources Department which looks at the company's long term objectives and then works out the staffing needs like the kind of staff required, the kind of skills required, etc., to achieve these objectives. Rather than just making staff redundant, businesses looking to grow in the near future should perhaps evaluate their long term goals and view the currently unemployed people as a pool of highly skilled employees and recruit them cheaply to make the best of the up turn. To help realise the true cost of redundancy, the CIPD has created a formula for employers.

Real cost of redundancy = (n ×R) + (x ×H) + (x ×T) + ny(H + T) + Wz(P - n)

Where:
• n = number of people made redundant
• R = redundancy payments
• x = number of people subsequently hired
• H = hiring costs
• T = induction/training cost
• y = percentage quitting post redundancy
• W= average monthly staff salary
• z = percentage reduction in output per worker caused by lower morale
• P = number of people employed prior to redundancies

BizEasy


Get 30 free prints of your digital photos

High Street Blues

The trading that occurs in the run up to Christmas is very crucial to retailers even in the "normal" years. It allows them to make up for the losses they might have incurred over the year and helps them prepare financially for the coming year. 2008 has been, by any standards, anything but a normal year. Huge banks have become small banks, some have been swallowed up by bigger banks, some have merged with other banks while some have disappeared altogether.

Little surprise then that the past few weeks have been really tense for the retailers. The number of shoppers visiting the shops have decreased. As a result, retailers have been forced to cut their prices to attract shoppers. According to Experian, the number of shoppers during the weekend, the last weekend before Christmas, was down by 8.7% as compared to last year. However, the number of shoppers yesterday were up 13.6% as compared to the same Monday last year.

It's a bit unfair to compare the two corresponding Mondays because last year the Monday was Christmas Eve. The kind of shoppers who go shopping on Christmas Eve are generally those looking for food items or ingredients for their Christmas dinner, last minute shoppers or those looking for last minute bargains.

Even though the number of shoppers increased, it still remains to be seen how much revenue that translates into. The main reason why more consumers went out to shop perhaps has a lot to do with a last minute heavy discounts by retailers in desperate attempt to attract shoppers. According to the accountants Ernst & Young, the average discounts were 40%, up from 38% last year. It means that even though people had more shopping bags in their hands, the retailers wouldn't have made a lot of money from that.

Although the high street is seeing a decline in the number of shoppers, according to Hitwise, the number of people visiting the websites of high street retailers has increased. Between Dec 18 and Dec 21, traffic to online retailers(including internet-only and high street) increased by 2.2% on average as compared to last year. Websites of high street retailers saw their traffic increase by 2.7% on Saturday and 5.9% on Sunday as compared to last year.

When it comes to prices, mostly the online retailers clearly have an advantage over their high street rivals. But their biggest drawback is that the items have to ordered before a certain date to ensure that they are delivered in time for Christmas. On the other hand, the websites of high retailers allow the shoppers to book their products online and pick them up instore. It may not be cheaper than the internet-only retailers, but it certainly is more convenient. One of the put-offs of shopping on the high street before Christmas is clearly having to navigate through crowded streets and aisles holding your shopping bags. It is also very hard to compare prices across different retailers and browse the items leisurely.

The rise in the number of shoppers will definately be of some relief to retailers. But it will by no means make up for the dismal sales and revenues they have generated over the past few weeks. Woolworths and MFI have gone bankrupt and Whittard of Chelsea is said to be on the brink of administration. And it is clear that more will have the same fate in the new year, what remains to be seen is who they will be.

BizEasy

Sales rise amidst the credit crunch

According to figures released by the Office of National Statistics (ONS), the volume of sales between September and November rose by 0.5% as compared to the three months before it. This may not sound good, but compared to all the doom and gloom and the difficulty of obtaining credit, it does sound good. Also, the value of weekly sales in November were 2.9% higher than in November last year.

However, the high street retailers beg to differ with the figures. The British Retail Consortium (BRC) said that the figures released by the ONS were optimistic and painted a "rosy picture" of the current difficulties. According to BRC's own findings, the sales value actually fell by 0.4%. Experian reported that the footfall (the amount of traffic generated by shoppers visiting the stores) in stores for the first three days of the week had decreased by 11.5% compared to last year.

It seems hard to believe that the increase in the volume in sales could have lead to a increase in the value of sales. After all, the increase in the volume of sales is largely due to a wave of heavy discounting by the high street retailers, especially after Woolworths slashed its prices to get rid of its stock. It is likely that the spectacular and well-publicised offers by retailers would have made some reluctant consumers go out and spend. It is also equally likely that many who generally would have waited for Boxing Day sales have instead done their shopping before Christmas since they feel that the discounts offer good value for money. After all, there is a limit to the amount of discounts that the retailers can offer before it starts eroding their profits. So many consumers may feel that the discounts are as good as they are going to get. If this is true, what would happen is that the average amount of sales during the Christmas period hasn't really increased, but the shopping has been concentrated to a few weeks before Christmas.

The reason for this difference in figures, according to Reuters, is that the figures of "the ONS figures capture internet shopping more fully". According to the ONS, the value of online sales was £220 million in November and it accounted for 3.8% of the total retail revenues. According to Experian, its company Hitwise which is an online competitive intelligence service, found that the websites of high street retailers had 22% more visits than its internet-only rivals. This could explain why the sales have increased even though the number of shoppers visiting the stores seem to have decreased.

Many shoppers percieve the prices of online retailers to be cheaper than their high street counterparts. And this has been shown to be true in most cases. After all, they do not have to worry about expensive overhead costs like rent and sales staff. However, many shops on the high street nowadays allow their customers to haggle and bag bargains, and this is not available to online shoppers.

It would be interesting to see the figures of the overall retail sales before and after Christmas since that would allow us to see the whole picture.
1&1 Webhosting

BizEasy

Inflation? Worry about Deflation instead.

It was announced today that the Consumer Price Index (CPI) fell by 0.4% from 4.5% in October to 4.1% in November. The CPI is the official measure of inflation used by the Government. The biggest factor for this fall is being attributed to the fall in crude oil prices. The average price of petrol was 95.2p. On the other hand, prices of fresh fruit and vegetables and non-alcoholic beverages is said to have risen compared to last year.

Although the drop is good news, the rate of inflation is still twice the official target of 2%. So, Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England put pen to paper and wrote a letter to the Government explaining why the rate of inflation had not hit the target. The governor of the Bank of England is required to write a letter to the Government whenever the rate of inflation is either 1% above or below the target and explain the possible action the BoE might take to solve it. However, Mervyn King feels that the next time he has to write a letter to the Government, it may not be about the reasons for inflation, but deflation instead.

Save Money on your Electricity Bill with uSwitch.com

What are Inflation and Deflation?

Inflation is regarded to be a bad thing since it means a rise in prices, which is a bad thing for shoppers. Then, deflation must be a good thing, right? In the short term, yes it is. In the long term though, its a dreadful thing. To understand why a drop in prices is such a bad thing, one has to understand the meaning of the terms "inflation" and "deflation" and its causes. Inflation is the general increase in prices or, it is the decrease in the purchasing power of money. There are two possible causes; either the cost of production has increased, like the cost of raw materials or labour, or demand is out stripping supply. Take for example a rise in price of a NintendoWii games console. This may be due to a rise in the cost of materials and parts and workers who produce it. Or it could be that the number of units available is less than the number of people wanting to buy it, so the price goes up. Around Christmas, it is likely for the latter to be true. It wouldn't be unusual around this time to find a NintendoWii on eBay at twice its retail price.

Deflation is the persistent decrease in prices. This happens when supply outstrips demand which could happen due to a surge in productivity. Or, like in the current climate, consumers rein in their spending which means that shops have to cut prices to entice customers to spend. If this happens a couple of times, it creates an anticipation of further cuts in the future. So, although consumers may have the purchasing power, they postpone certain purchases since they would be cheaper in the future. Its a self-fulfilling prophecy where consumers postpone their spending thinking that there would be price cuts, and sure enough, shops cut the prices to persuade shoppers to loosen their purse strings. Good news for shoppers, bad news for businesses. Businesses experience cash flow problems and their staff would have to accept a pay cut or even lose their jobs. So, debt becomes expensive because one owes the same amount of money, but has less income to meet it. Signs of deflation can already be seen on the high-street. Retailers are offering massive discounts, the likes of which are usually seen after Christmas, because they are desperate to clear their stock. And the consumers know this and know that further discounts will follow eventually.

It will be interesting to see how Mervyn King and the Government will go about coaxing the shoppers to spend their money.

All the latest phones FREE on T-Mobile exclusively online
BizEasy

Cool to be Frugal

According to Andy Bond, the Chief Executive of ASDA, its now becoming cool to be frugal and not so cool to be frivolous and wasteful. He feels that consumer's shopping habits are changing and a new generation of shoppers who are thrifty are emerging as the credit crunch begins to bite even further.

So what does this really mean? It means that consumers will now focus more on products that offer them value for money and will aim to eliminate waste. Value for money doesn't really mean something that is priced less or discounted. It is actually something that offers satisfaction and quality for its price. Consumers will increasingly try to differentiate their "needs" from their "wants" and think carefully if they really need something or do they just want it. For example, ASDA noted that consumers are beginning to shift from buying ready meals to buying ingredients and cooking at home. People are also beginning to mend or fix items rather than getting rid of them and buying new ones. Cobblers, for example, have seen their business increase since consumers are coming in to get their shoes mended rather than splashing out on a new pair. A quick search on Google Trends showed that visits to the comparison site moneysupermarket.com and myvouchercodes.co.uk which lists voucher codes across a variety of stores had more than doubled.

What's really interesting is the 40% increase in the number of people who are ignoring best-before dates and consuming the product rather than throwing it in the bin once it is past its sell by date. Perhaps the increase has also something to do with the numerous reports on saving money on television featuring people who regularly consume food, as long as it looks fit, well past the best before date. Consumers are also freezing leftover food rather than wasting it and sales of bottled water and smoothies has also been said to have decreased since many are opting to fill tap water and eat fresh fruit instead.

It is important then that retailers spot this trend and adjust their business models accordingly in order to survive the downturn. Thrifty consumers would focus on long term value and would be willing to spend a little bit extra on an item that is likely to last longer than buy something cheaper in price which would also be cheaper in quality and hence not last as long. Rather than reducing prices on cheap Christmas stocking fillers that perhaps wont even last till next Christmas, retailers should instead focus on reducing prices on items that actually are of some use to the consumers. Also, thrifty consumers are less likely to buy items on impulse which retailers greatly depend on. So, businesses should make sure that they are really operating on a low cost model which aims to eliminate waste as that would be the only way that they would be able to offer low prices and good service at the same time.

AVG Internet Security offers Anti-Virus, Anti-Spam, Web Protection & Firewall - comprehensive protection for your PC. Get protected

BizEasy

HSBC to increase its lending

The World’s Local Bank HSBC announced on Monday that it aimed to lend next year roughly two times the amount it lent to homeowners in 2007. For this purpose, it has set aside around £15 billion. In an environment where banks are becoming increasingly reluctant to lend money, HSBC hopes to increase its market share by lending, thereby getting a huge slice of a, albeit, small market. It is also hoping that its customers will continue to bank with it even when the climate improves, because they will remember that HSBC was there for them when all the other banks closed their doors. This will mean that when the market does get bigger, they will effectively have a huge slice of a huge pie.

So, how can HSBC afford to increase its lending when other banks have had to be injected with capital by the taxpayers. HSBC is one of the few banks thathasn't gone to the taxpayers cap-in-hand asking for a cash injection, it is in fact well capitalised, according to its CEO Michael Geoghegan . According to its spokesperson, HSBC doesn't have to depend on the two main sources of finance that the banks that were bailed out depended on- the money markets and UK depositors. It will instead fund it internally using its reserves. The reason why other banks are lending less money is because they don't have enough money to lend.

Find. Compare. Save. at Kelkoo.co.uk Click here

It is true that last Thursday the MPC (Monetary Policy Committee) cut the base rate by 1% to 2%-the lowest it has been for years. However, the primary source of finance for most banks is not by borrowing from the Bank of England, but from the money markets. The rate of interest in the money marketshasn't gone down at the same rate as the base rate. Hence, the cut in the base rate is unlikely to make the cost of borrowing money any cheaper. Another source of finance for banks is their customers' deposits. However, in recent years, the levels of savings in the UK is said to have decreased. The cut in savings rate by the banks is unlikely toentice people into put their hard earned cash into banks, except for those whom the interest paid is their income.

HSBC also announced a £1 billion fund for lending to small businesses. Small Businesses that are fundamentally sound and only experiencing cash flow problems are the kinds of businesses it is hoping to lend to. The reluctance of banks to lend to sound businesses has been it the news recently, forcing numerous businesses to cease trading just because they have a cash flow problem and not because their business model is fundamentally flawed. The increase in the number of small businesses going bankrupt no doubt puts the jobs of many people at risk and leads to fear amongst those that are in employment. Small business owners, no doubt, will welcome this announcement which will be akin to a lifeline being thrown at them when they are in dire straits.

It has stressed, however, that the lending criteria will still be strict. In other words, they are not planning to throw money at anybody who asks for it.

Even if this announcement does not completely restore confidence, any good news is welcome in these gloomy times. It is unlikely that any other major bank will come forward and increase its lending in the near future, no matter how much Brown, Darling orMandelson threaten or cajole them into doing so. In a way, one cannot blame the banks which have been bailed out for being reluctant or in their words, "careful", of lending. On one hand, they are the subject of many a joke and their "irresponsible" lending is being blamed for all this mess, and on the other hand, they are being pushed to lend at levels of last year.The money which has been lent to the banks on behalf of the taxpayers has not come cheap, the banks have had to pay a hefty price for it.

http://www.bizeasy.wordpress.com/

Retailers embrace VAT cut

The cut in the VAT announced last week by the Chancellor initially didn’t receive the reception that he might have been perhaps hoping for. News reports, newspapers and websites were filled with comments against the idea of the VAT cut, some being funny, and some downright ironic. Most were along the lines of “10p saving! Whoopee!”

However, over the weekend, it looks like many retailers are whole-heartedly embracing the VAT cut. Not because they like to go through the trouble of having to change the prices and labels and the IT systems. But because it gives them another reason to slash their prices, much more than the 2.5% VAT cut. But, why do they need a something like a VAT cut to give them a reason to slash prices? Surely, they can do it without that.

Yes they can. And many, like M&S and Debenhams, did a fortnight ago when they had a one-day only “spectacular” sale. Having yet another “spectacular” sale nearly three weeks before Christmas would give the impression that they have a lot of left over stock which they are desperate to sell. Although many shoppers would flock the stores to bag the bargains, which many have been doing due to the ongoing sales, many would stand back and wait for the prices to drop even further – a clear sign of deflation.

Hence, the cut in VAT, although not significant on its own, has provided the retailers with a timely reason to slash their prices further, using the VAT cut as a “mask” for doing so. Some companies, however, like BT and Virgin Media have decided to pass only the 2.5% cut to their customers.

But, how do single price retailers like Poundland, 99p Stores, or numerous other independent single price retailers pass on the VAT cut to their customers? After the VAT cut, an item costing £1 would then cost:
117.5% = 100p (The VAT is already added to the final selling price)
1% = 0.85p
115% = 97.87p (new price)
Poundland wouldn’t be able to rename itself as 97pLand for a period of 13 months, and the slogan “Everything’s £1” would then be deemed misleading. The only other option is for such businesses to increase their profit margins, which is not a bad thing, but they cannot take the advantage of being able to advertise the fact that they are passing on the VAT cut to their customers. Or, they could sell products that they wouldn’t have been able to in the past, as it would’ve been priced above £1, but can now since the cut in VAT allows the price to be £1.

http://www.bizeasy.wordpress.com/

Woolworths goes into administration

The high street retailer Woolworths, fondly known as Woolies, has been forced to go into administration after it failed to find a buyer to snap it up for a nominal £1. So, why didn’t anybody buy it, surely £1 for a whole company seems like a bargain? That’s because the buyer would have not only acquired Woolworth’s assets (things it owns), but also its huge liabilities (money it owes), £385 million to be exact.

So, what is administration and when does a business go into administration? With regards to business, it is when a business doesn’t have enough funds to trade, also known a cash flow crisis. Cash flow is not the same as profitability of a business, but refers to the cash flowing into and out of the business. If cash coming in is less than the cash going out, then the cash flow is negative and it means that the business does not have enough funds to meet the current liabilities, like creditors and suppliers.

Up to 50% now on at House of Fraser – click here to shop

However, going into administration isn’t still the end of the story for Woolworths. In fact, administrators, in this case the accountancy firm Deloitte, protect the company from creditors seizing stock to pay off the money that is owed to them. The administrators are trying to find a buyer for Woolworths, failing which it will be forced to go into liquidation. This is where the administrators try to sell off the assets to recover any money they can to pay off the debts. Woolworths competitors are dreading this because although it will mean less competition in the long term, since there is one less player in the market, in the short term, it will mean a price war during Christmas as the administrators will slash prices to sell off all the stock.

So, is the reason for Woolworth’s difficulties due to the credit crunch? Well, the increase in household bills has meant that consumers are spending less. This is evident from the fact that Woolworth’s like-for-like sales have decreased whereas their costs have increased leading to increased losses. Many analysts say that Woolworth’s difficulties should come as no surprise, as Woolworths didn’t have a clear brand image, what its brand stood for, and its purpose in the market. Additionally, suppliers of Woolworths found it expensive to insure themselves against the risk that it wouldn’t be able to pay them and hence, Woolworths had to pay upfront for the supplies, unable to take advantage of buying on credit that some of its competitors enjoy.

Woolworths has around 815 stores and employs around 30,000 employees. If the business does go into liquidation, all these employees stand to lose their jobs. Also, the businesses that supply to Woolworths will also suffer losses. The question many people are asking is why isn’t the Government bailing Woolworths out, after all, it did bail out the banks. Well, the Government can’t bailout every business in difficulty; it’s a natural business process where the one with the weakest business model fails hence making the others stronger due to decreased competition.

Other than its retail business, Woolworths Plc. also owns Entertainment UK and 2Entertain. Entertainment UK specialises in the supply of CDs and DVDs to retailers such as Tesco, Zavvi, W H Smith, Asda, Sainsbury’s, Morrisons and of course Woolworths itself. EUK is said to be a profitable business and the administrators are looking for a buyer for it as well. If EUK is shut down, it will no doubt affect the retailers it supplies, especially during the crucial trading period of Christmas. BBC Worldwide and Woolworths Plc., on the other hand jointly own 2Entertain, and there are talks of BBC Worldwide buying Woolworth’s share of the business.
It has also been reported that MFI is also going into administration, and it looks like a few more will follow, certainly after Christmas. If you want to see Woolworth’s Interim report for 2008, click here.

http://www.bizeasy.wordpress.com/

Spend, Spend, Spend

According to recent figures from the British Retail Consortium (BRC), the value of total UK sales as of October 2008 were down 2.2% on a like-for-like basis as compared to last year. Food and Drink was the only sector to have shown an increase in sales. Consumers are cutting back and postponing purchases that are not needed and focusing on the wants instead. Buying patterns are changing as well since many now prefer to cook at home from scratch and are focusing on products that offer them value for money and are actually actively seeking out promotions, discounts and offers.

This is bad news for retailers who are desperately depending on Christmas sales this year more than ever. No wonder then that for many high street retailers, Christmas has indeed come early this year. Discounts and promotions which are normally seen after Christmas are beginning to make their way into stores at a high street near you- five weeks before Christmas.

Leading the way is Debenhams, who is having a “spectacular” three-day sale, starting today, where many of the products are going to be 20-25% cheaper. But its Marks & Spencer who is receiving the most attention and media coverage for its “20 % off” sale for only one day-tomorrow. Other high street retailers are likely to join the battle to fight for every penny of the consumer’s disposable income this season. In the coming weeks leading up to Christmas, more and more such promotions will come out to entice people to come in and spend their money.

Up to 50% now on at House of Fraser – click here to shop

But, as Gillian Lacey-Solymar pointed out on BBC’s Working Lunch, these promotions are likely to happen on weekdays. This is because the promotions are meant to draw people into the stores, which they do anyways on weekends, and so there is no point offering them heavy discounts then if they are likely to settle for less.

It is highly unlikely that these promotions will have a huge impact since people will only buy it if they perceive it as value for money and more importantly, if it is on the top of their priority list. The truth is, people are still being squeezed by rising utility prices and high food prices. Also, almost every other day a well known business announces job cuts which is likely to make those still in employment worry about their security and hence, save every penny they can.

Undoubtedly, all these promotions are good for the consumers. But, offering such huge discount means that retailers are effectively cutting their profit margins, or sometimes even making a loss just to shift their stock. What this means is that in the long term, many retailers will not be able to sustain themselves and it will not be financially viable for them to operate any longer, and hence will go bust.

So what? Well, this would result in job losses, numerous suppliers losing their orders and so on. When the economy does recover, it will mean one less competitor in the marketplace and hence, less competitive prices.

So, in the short term, the promotions are good for the consumers, in the long term however, maybe not.

http://www.bizeasy.wordpress.com

Children help their parents spend their money

According to recent news, parents are unwittingly spending £191 million a year to fund their children’s shopping habits. Or rather, the children are doing it for them on their behalf to save their parents the trouble of doing so. According to a survey consisting of 500 parents and 500 children, around 20%, or 1 in every 5, children have admitted to using their parents’ credit card for their online purchases.

The items in the shopping basket include the latest electronics, games, etc. Put simply, items that are on every child’s wish list. The age of the children ranges from 8 to 16 years and the value of the average purchase is said to be around £25. Of the parents surveyed, only 2% felt that their children would purchase goods online without their permission. 20% of the children also knew their parents’ username and password for their shopping websites. This made it easy for them to access their accounts and place orders.

Great deals at the Kodak Online Shop. Buy now >

The recent strain being put on personal finances due to the rise in prices and unemployment would have undoubtedly led to parents cutting back their spending on buying the latest gadgets and gizmos and branded fashion accessories for their children. This means that the children feel “left out” when all their peers have the latest mobile phone or mp3 player and they are stuck with the “old” one.

Certain companies prey on this insecurity that the children harbour by pressurising them to purchase, or rather pester their parents to purchase the products that are endorsed by their “heroes” whom they “look up to”. The advertising method is such that it sends out the message to youngsters that a brand name is much more important than they product itself. It is endorsed by a well-known celebrity and therefore it’s cool and fashionable to own it and most certainly well worth the expensive price tag.

Often, the prices of these products are 2-3 times the price of their unbranded, store own-brand or less known branded counterparts. The obvious reason for this is that it allows the companies to “skim” the market, or in other words, pricing their products higher than the competitors since they know that the consumers will still want to buy them.

In August this year, The Association of Teachers and Lecturers expressed concern when their research showed that children who didn’t have the latest gadgets or wear garments that didn’t sport a fashionable logo were often bullied and mocked by their peers.

The report also highlighted how “brand aware” the children are and how in the race to be up-to-date, they end up having low self esteem and self confidence because their “net worth” or “net value” amongst their peers is judged by the brands they own.

In essence, what these companies are doing is “adding value” to a product by merely associating it with their brand. So, what you end up paying for is the brand. Of course, many might argue that many branded products do offer good value for money because they are of a better build quality. And what you get in return for the premium charged is peace of mind that the product will last. No doubt, this is true. But then, this isn’t true in all cases.

Interestingly, 30% of the parents’ admitted to saving their banking details online.
If the children can easily access them, just imagine how easy it might be for a fraudster to access the details. Then the orders might not be for £25, but more like £2500.

http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5i_9ZhcHk7F5v3WAReNAjjeFmrMxg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7549770.stm
http://www.bizeasy.wordpress.com/

Profits at Starbucks go Skinny Latte

Profits for the coffee chain Starbucks fell by 97% in the fourth quarter to $5.4 million, as compared to $158.5 million this time last year. Although the sales revenue were up 3% to $2.52 billion, like for like sales actually decreased by 8%.

This shouldn’t really come as a surprise then since consumers are cutting back on what they deem “luxuries” and are more cautious about their spending and are literally watching their pennies. Starbucks is perhaps well known for its high prices as much as it is for its coffee. Its share price dropped by 3% after the news broke out and was trading at $9.91. Last year, it would have been worth around $20-$30.Starbucks said that it has seen a decrease in customer traffic, in other words the number of customers visiting its branches, and also, crucially, the value of each transaction per customer. So, it is likely that the increase in sales revenue is likely to be due to the increase in prices.

Although drinking coffee is one of life’s little pleasures, its prices in the cafés are anything but little. A cup of coffee for $4 or £2.50 may seem insignificant on its own, but multiply them up for every working day of the month and you are left with a sizeable figure. Starbucks could lower its prices, but it is seen as a premium brand and would as a result devalue its brand value. Think of Marks & Spencer’s food range competing on its prices with Tesco’s Value range or Sainsbury’s Basic range and you get the picture about devaluing the brand value.

It’s likely that other coffee chains like Café Nero and Costa Coffee would now be worried about their own situation while the likes of McDonald’s will be rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of attracting coffee drinkers with their cheap prices. McCoffee anyone?

http://www.bizeasy.wordpress.com

Meeting with Headteacher Darling

Since many of the banks had seemed to have failed to pass on the Bank of England’s very generous 1.5% cut in interest rate to their customers on the Standard Variable Rate (SVR) mortgages, the mischievous bankers were summoned to a meeting with the head teacher, a.k.a., Alistair Darling, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They were told to pass on the interest rate cut to their customers, or else, face detention.

A standard variable rate is where the interest rate is tracked by the lender, solely at its discretion, to the base rate of the Bank of England or the LIBOR rate. So, the obvious excuse that the bankers gave for not passing on this cut was that the cost of borrowing money on the open market, i.e., the LIBOR rate, had not come down at the same rate. That’s true, although the LIBOR rate did drop by 1.07% from 5.56% to 4.49% on Friday. The lowest rate since May 2004, incase you thought why it was that significant.

Save Money on your gas bill with uSwitch.com

Bowing to pressure, Lloyds TSB, Halifax, Nationwide, Abbey, Royal Bank of Scotland, NatWest (part of Royal Bank of Scotland), Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley have all cut the interest rate by a full 1.5%. Also, the fact that the LIBOR rate has fallen makes it hard for the banks to justify their reluctance to pass on the cut.

Usually, the banks are quite quick to match a hike in interest rate by the Bank of England because it allows them to justify doing so. However, they don’t seem so keen when the rate is cut.

The opposite is true for the savings rate. Most banks have been more than happy to cut the interest rates on their savings account using the recent cut in rates by the Bank of England as the justification. This hardly seems like the right thing to do when banks are desperate for funds to lend and one of the sources is the deposits by the customers, the other being borrowing on the open market. Since its expensive to borrow on the open markets, as the banks themselves are saying, they should be trying to entice customers to deposit money.

Get MS hosting starting at $4 per month + free domains. Click Here now to Save!

But what’s amusing is that Alistair Darling and his advisors actually assumed that the banks would pass on the cut to their customers. Why would they? They are not charitable institutions that work for the best interests of their customers. They are financial institutions whose main aim is to make profit and make their shareholder’s investment in them worthwhile. Lets not forget that banks all across the globe have lost billions, if not trillions, of pounds in the financial crisis. So, it is but obvious that they would try hard as they could to make up for the loss.

No wonder then that people have literally started to stuff cash under their mattresses. The chief executive of G4S, the security transport company, Nick Buckles, recently said that the amount of cash in the system had increased since people are preferring to use cash instead of credit. It emerged recently that the number of £50 notes in circulation had increased by 20%.

He added, “People use it as a means of budgeting. They don’t like credit, so clearly there’s more cash transactions, more ATM transactions. And I guess the £50 note issue is people hoarding cash at home.”


http://www.bizeasy.wordpress.com

Bank of England cuts base rate by 1.5%. But who will it help?

The Bank of England (BoE) cut the base rate of borrowing money by a staggering 1.5% to 3% in a bid to stimulate lending and as a result stimulate spending. Well, we’ll have to wait and see if that happens. The people that will benefit from this cut are those who have tracker mortgages since this will mean a possible cut in their interest rates and their repayments.

For some, the decrease in the repayments might mean the difference between being able to meet the repayments and having their homes repossessed.

The market had definitely expected a cut in the interest rate, but of about 0.5%, not 1.5%. So, who will benefit from the cut? Not many, especially after how the banks literally scrambled to withdraw most of their tracker mortgage deals. A tracker mortgage is one with a variable rate of interest, which is above the base rate of the Bank of England by a set percentage either for the whole period of the mortgage or a period of time. The benefit of this is that when the rate goes down, so does the interest rate, and vice-versa when the rate goes up. However, some tracker deals will not track the base rate after it falls to a certain level or a minimum level, which is known as a “collar”. Halifax, for example, has a “collar” of 3%, which means that a further cut will not be beneficial to its customers.

Web exclusive offers from T-Mobile - Apply online now

This means that first time buyers who were planning to get on the property ladder will have to look elsewhere. Its already beginning to look like the cut in the base rate has failed to do one of the main things it was supposed to do- enable first time buyers to buy properties. If first time buyers are unable to buy properties, this will certainly come as a blow for the construction industry since it means that their properties will remain empty and they will have to impetus or money to build new properties.

So, why have the banks been so quick in withdrawing their tracker mortgages? To protect their other more profitable mortgage deals, of course. Banks charge interest on their mortgages based not on the BoE’s base rate, but on the LIBOR (London Inter Bank Offered Rate). That’s the rate at which banks lend and borrow from one another. While the base rate has been steadily coming down, the LIBOR has proved to be more sticky, hardly budging at all. According to the data from www.thisismoney.co.uk, the LIBOR for the past four weeks has been between 6.28% and 5.68%. Much above the Bank of England’s base rate.

This means that tracker mortgages have a smaller profit margin than the other deals due to the vast difference in the interest rates. Clearly, deals whose rate are based on the LIBOR are much more profitable for the banks and it should then come as no surprise that they are withdrawing the tracker mortgages.

Another group of people who are likely to lose out are those who depend on the income they get from the interest they get on their savings.

Many people were praying, and certainly many more were hoping for a cut in the interest rate to provide them with some respite in these difficult times. While the cut might be a boon for them, for others, not so much.


http://www.bizeasy.wordpress.com