Archive for category Economics
Venture Capital, Take Note
Posted by Joshua Sharf in Economics, Finance, Health Care on September 22nd, 2009
In the generally miserable venture capital environment of that last few quarters, one bright spot has been the health sciences market. It’s one of the area where Colorado can compete effectively, and an area where America is well ahead of the rest of the world. It produces actual long-term savings and real quality-of-life and lifespan improvements.
And the Senate – presumably with the agreement of Colorado’s Bennet and Udall – is getting ready to kill it.
First, the numbers. VC itself has, not surprisingly, gone cliff-diving along with the rest of investment capital recently. After the dot-com craziness, total VC investment seemed to return to a normal growth curve this century before crashing in the recent downturn:

The one exception to this has been Life Sciences. While well behind last year’s pace, VC in life sciences has recovered fairly well in Q2, to the average over the last 5 years, and close to 2005 levels:

Note the steep drop-off in Healthcare Services VC after 2000. I’m not certain why that’s so, but it’d be interesting to find out. Also note that medical device investment has grown not only in dollars, but also as a percentage of total LS investment.
While the National Venture Capital Association doesn’t provide crosstabs between regions and sectors, it’s reasonable to assume that at least some of Colorado’s growth from 3.0% of venture capital dollars in 2008 to 4.3% in 2009 is a result of our strong biotech sector.
Now, the Senate is proposing what is, in effect, a national excise tax on medical device sales, to help pay for the health care takeover. (Hat tip: TigerHawk) Exactly where do they think the large companies come from? Exactly where do they think the large companies get their devices to re-sell? They don’t free-ride on this technology, they buy it once the ideas have been developed by smaller, ie, venture firms.
Brilliant idea, gentlemen.
Cash for Clunkers: Cooked Books for Domestic Manufacturers?
Posted by Joshua Sharf in Economics on August 31st, 2009
It won’t come as any surprise to readers that I’m not exactly a fan of Cash for Clunkers. All this $3,000,000,000 Chinese borrowing program did was push forward some demand. If car dealers are going to permanently reduce their months of inventory, that’s all to the good, but it’s hard to see how C4C did anything other than hasten the process a little. (If they’re not, then it did even less good.) The environmental effects are minuscule, given the size of the US auto fleet and the small per-unit increase in mileage. And many dealers ended up pulling out of the program because the interest-free loans they were floating to the feds (with the notable exception of government-owned GM), were putting them in a cash crunch. As reimbursement trickles in, they’ll see sales drop back to lower-then-previous levels, and there’s no particular reason to think the dealers will be better off for having moved revenue from one quarter to another. In the meantime, it’s taken a large chunk of older cars and their replacement parts off the market, hurting most those who need cheap local transportation, the working poor.
However, there’s one complaint that isn’t particularly valid: that most of the cars bought were Japanese models, and that this hurts the domestic manufacturers. According to the final numbers, the Big 3 ended up with about 38% of the cars sold. But of the biggest foreign sellers, many are either made or assembled here in the US. The Toyota Corolla had a US-made engine and was assembled in the company’s Fremont, Calif. plant. At least, until they decided to shutter the place late last week. Honda Civic sedans also have US engines and are assembled in Indiana. The Camry has both US transmissions and engines, and is assembled locally (not so the hybrid, which is only assembled here). The Accord has both local engines and transmissions, and is assembled in Ohio. Presumably parts for all of those models are also produced domestically.
The Fit, Elantra, Versa, and Prius, seem to be produced exclusively overseas, but those are also down the list.
So while union shops may have a lot to complain about (especially since the doomed Fremont plant is the only union shop among the foreign-owned group), it’s not clear that US shops have really suffered here. If conservatives are going to promote free trade on the grounds that non-union foreign plants also employ people, we need to be honest enough to recognize when they benefit from ill-conceived government programs, too.
Still, the political power of pitting domestic vs. foreign cars is undeniable, which makes these numbers interesting. As of August 4, according to the LA Times and “numbers floating around Capitol Hill,” almost half the 157,000 cars sold had been from the Big 3. Two weeks and $2,000,000,000 later, an additional 533,000 cars had been sold, 2/3 of which were from foreign producers. It’s unclear what the source of the original numbers was – the LA Times doesn’t give one – but I’m extremely skeptical that first-week buyers were so radically different from 2nd- and 3rd-week buyers. And it wouldn’t surprise me at all to hear that some “creative estimating” was done in order to boost the apparent benefit of the program to domestic manufacturers.



