No one has to say that economic times are tough, it’s all over the news and it’s in every conversation taking place out there.  I personally see a trend forming in the retail markets that I predict were long in coming and this economic downturn was simply a catalyst for a change that was already on it’s way.

Shopping malls are changing.  Have you noticed?  More and more malls are losing stores as they close up and leave.  Store owners no longer wanting to keep their doors open just so they can pay the exorbitant rents being charged by the mall owners.  Many, like Big Dogs and others, are changing their business model to keep up with today’s world and the demand.  No longer can speciality stores and small businesses afford to keep expensive store fronts open and still make a profit worth staying in business for. 

Frankly, the market and the philosophy for retail marketing is changing to one of “adapt or die”.   I foresee shopping malls continue to thin out to the point of non-existence in some cases.  Small businesses, especially specialty shops, if they are smart, are packing up and going to an on-line model.  Some are closing all but their most key stores and refocusing their business model on their on-line business as their source of income.  As well they should, customer bases are changing.  From what I have heard on the radio, television and print, consumers have been shifting to on-line shopping methods for many reasons, convenience and price being the biggest two.

One of the biggest problems I see facing many shopping mall owners and the loss of their paying rental/leasing base is their failure to face reality.  Many property owners of malls and strip malls and even office space are not changing with the times fast enough or are changing when it is too late.  Not negotiating with your tenants when times are as tough as they are now is just BAD BUSINESS!  

The alternative to many of these small businesses to not getting their rent/lease reduced is to simply close up shop and go out of business.  Some simply go elsewhere where the rent/lease is more reasonable.   The problem for many of these property owners is they realize too late that they need to negotiate with their tennants much earlier than when they hit hard times and the tennant comes to them.  If the tennant is coming to you asking to renegotiate their rent, they are most likely already having financially rough times and are in most cases likely to not survive them.

For longer term success, the landlords should approach their tennants early in the process, offer them a break during these hard times and help them stay in business longer.  In the long run, it helps both parties out and helps the tennant stay in business and the landlord is able to get some form of revenue for the property.   Landlords need to face the reality of the concept that “the more open space you have, the harder it is to attract new tennants” and “a tennant paying something is better than a empty store front paying nothing”.

I have lived in Oxford, Michigan since 2001.  In my eight years of living here I can say I have seen stores come and go, some of them in the exact same spot.  Landlords need to stop thinking “I have premium space” and instead think “I need stability” for both their future and the future of their locale.  No offense to landlords in Oxford but, get real!  You can’t expect new businesses to open, rent expensive space from you and expect them to stay in business long.  Most businesses need time to get going, make money and become known.  If the new business is already dying before anyone knows they are there, they have absolutely no chance at success and exorbitant rental rates and leases do not help at all.  It might be a short term gain for you but it is a long term loss in the end.

This by no means to limited to Oxford, it is happening all over the place.  Great Lakes Mall is a great example.  I have been living in the area long enough to have seen GL open and saw how vibrant it seemed to start out.   Very shortly after it started I noticed a number of stores that had closed up within the first couple of years.  In going there now (2009) I have observed even more empty stores with many more stores displaying “clearance” sales and “going out of business” sales. 

I by no means can tell you how much store owners are being charged for rent at GL, but I will make one observation; whatever they were/are charging, it’s too much and if you don’t change your business model, you may find yourself with a mall full of empty storefronts.  The more stores that close in a mall, the less attractive the mall becomes, the fewer people go to it and the fewer new businesses want to take a chance with opening a store there.  Squeezing more out of those who remain is no way to stay in business and no way to keep tennants.

Ok, I’ve had my rant.  Landlords, you need to get real, you can’t keep charging the rates you are and stay profitable in the long run.  But hey, I’m an information technologies guy with my specialty areas focusing around the web, by all means, push more businesses to an all web-based model to do business.  You are definitely helping out people like myself in the long run because don’t be surprised when there are no more mega malls.  Sure, there will be stores out there still, where people can try on the clothes before they buy them, but please make sure you are taking stock in how many of your tennants are specialty stores who could probably do better with an on-line model and no store front to pay high exorbitant rents for.

Oh, by the way, landlords, it only costs a store owner approximately $100-$200 per year to host an on-line store front, and another couple thousand PER YEAR to have someone manage it for them.  Think about that the next time you want to raise a tennants rent to compensate for the tennants you’ve lost because rent was unreasonable.

Popularity: 35% [?]

Are you kidding me!?  Capping executive pay at $500k is a joke!   Please explain to me what someone can do to be worth $500k!   How about some real salary caps for these jokers who caused this mess?  Hmm… maybe something more like $200k with the promise of a huge bonus IF they produce results?

It is sad that corporate America has put such a high value on these positions.   Frankly, many of which would not even do their jobs at all if it were not for the support staff keeping them afloat.  Don’t get me wrong, I believe people should be compensated when they produce results.  The compensation should reflect those results and that compensation should be equally distributed to that “team” not just to one individual.  That one individual could not have done their job without the assistance of a lot of other people under them.

Frankly, I believe those financial companies that took bailout money and paid out huge bonuses should not only be ashamed of themselves, they should be forced to return the money and be fired!   In case they weren’t paying attention, here goes; YOUR COMPANY WAS/IS LOSING MONEY, YOU TOOK BAILOUT MONEY, HOW DO YOU CONSIDER THAT WORTH REWARDING WITH A BONUS? 

I believe these high level officials have gotten so used to getting huge sums, they no longer know how to live on a “real” salary.  Most of them reached a point when things in the financial world started to fall apart where they said “oh no, how will we make it?”  This of course justified for them to continue to take bonuses that they no longer truly earned any more.  Many of them had developed such lavish lifestyles that they would have to give up completely without the bonuses to support them.    All I can say is, poor baby, learn to live with less, the rest of us have to!

$500k salary caps?  Give me a break!  How about salary caps which better represent the true value someone brings to the company and not the perceived value.   I strongly believe bonuses have their place, when the company is doing well and wants to share the wealth with those that made it successful.  Rewarding people for just being there and holding a high position in the company or being a ”name” of importance in the industry is just so wrong!

Lower the salary caps to about half of what they are, watch those executives work their collective asses off to truly ”earn” their bonuses in order to support a realistic lifestyle and not one which is based around the excess they have grown accustomed to. 

 Oh, and just in case someone says “the owner should be paid whatever they want to be paid” or something along those lines.  I am not referring to business owners.  Business owners (not shareholders) should pay themselves what they think they are worth.  They merely have to remember that they still have a business to run and keep running.  You drain it too much, there is nothing left to help your continuity.  I know many successful business owners who do not live lavish lifestyles and only take a salary for what they truly need to comfortably support their families.

Popularity: 34% [?]

I remember being a child, a teenager and a young adult.  What I don’t remember being was a rude, condescending, know-it-all brat that was so self-centered and/or selfish in nature adults would avoid contact with you at all costs.  I don’t remember it because it never happened, at least not to me.  Granted, I had friends who were close to being that way but even they had limits.

 Today’s teenagers and young adults seem so to be so out of touch with society and how to behave properly, it will be a surprise for them when they enter the real adult world of jobs and responsibilities.   Today’s teenagers will be surprised to realize that as they enter the adult world and want something back from it that the self-centered and selfish attitude will not serve them well at all.

 How did these kids wind up this way though?  Adults my age that I am familiar with did not start out that way and none of them even closely resembled what we see today.  Is it the parents that are to blame?   I would like to think that that is not the only factor, that there has to be more to it.  I consider myself to be a strict parent, with consequences for undesirable actions, yet, no matter how hard I try, I cannot get my own 14 year old to think about someone other than himself for even 10 seconds.  Everything he does or says is about him in some way without any regard for how his actions affect anyone around him.

Is it our schools?  I don’t know.  I would like to think that our schools have good and bad teachers, that it balances out but frankly I have run into more teachers who shouldn’t be teaching than ones who should.   Some teachers in my opinion have just turned plain lazy, especially those with tenure.  Being that our children spend so much time in front of these “adults”, could they also be emulating the attitudes of some of them?

Could it be the generation they are growing up in?  I remember as a young child, teenager and then young adult spending a significant amount of time outdoors.  Today’s kids act like it is a punishment to be sent outside!  “It’s boring!” and “there’s nothing to do” are the claims that get made at my home.  When  you do kick them outside for their own good, they would rather sit on the stoop outside the door than actually go out and find something to do!   Ride your bike to a friends house?   “But that’s a mile away!”    Oh com-on!  As a kid I easily rode a mile or two to see my best friend. 

It’s simple, children today are given too many conveniences, are entertained too much and simply put, they are a bunch of spoiled brats!  Now, before I have someone writing saying “must be your kid” or “my kid is not that way”, hear me out, I am saying most kids, not all.  If you have a perfect angel at home, consider yourself blessed by God, the rest of us are not so blessed.   Don’t get me wrong, I love my children to death, but once they reach teenagers they become self-centered selfish aliens that I just do not understand any more.

What seems to be the answer?  I don’t know.  I know that I will continue to try to pound into them that respect for themselves and others is more important a trait than any other they will possess.  I will continue to pound into them that taking pride in your work and doing the best you can is what you should expect from yourself if you expect it from others.  Finally, I will continue to strike home with the fact that they need to understand that as unimportant as they may think their actions are, they have consequences AND far reaching repercussions that affect many others and not just themselves.

Popularity: 32% [?]

I consider myself to be a responsible home owner and borrower.  I obtained a mortagage at a decent rate and put a decent amount down on my home.    I did what many others did and responsibly borrowed money to buy my home and hoped to earn equity in it over time.

Now with the subprime mortgage mess having blown up by people going bankrupt and walking away from their homes, property values have gone into the toilet!  Many of us that were responsible in borrowing money to buy a home are screwed by being stuck in homes we cannot sell and are no longer worth what we currently owe on them!     In our neighborhood, homes that once sold for over $240k now are lucky to get even $130k and that’s if they can get sold at all.  This leaves many of us, who were responsible, upside down in our homes and stuck.

The government seeks to assist those who were not responsible and bail out those banks that made the bad loans in the first place but I say “What about us!?”  What about those of us who didn’t make bad choices earlier on and now owe more on our homes that they are able to sell for.   The government has instituted the ability for bankruptcy judges to have a mortage renegotiated to its current value and a mortage that the previous subprime home owner can now handle.  What about those of us home owners who do not want to go through bankruptcy to get our mortgages lowered?   Why do we have to hit rock bottom before we can get our fair shake in all of this?

My take on this?  The government is already bailing out banks and borrowers for these bad mortgages. From all intensive purposes, the bailout does not appear to be extending this to the rest of the tax payers who DID NOT screw up and make bad choices, who are VICTIMS of the banks and subprime borrowers irresponsibility.  As a taxpayer, affected by this gross irresponsibility, we should be able to expect the same capabilities to do at least one of the following:

First option, if you need to sell your home, be able to do so at the current market value and have the bank receive a bailout for their loss in the sale.  The borrower would walk away with no equity but will also not owe anything on the home afterward either.  I do not see how this is any different than a judge lowering the mortage value and forcing the mortgage company to remake the loan based on the new amount.

Second, if you wish to stay in your home, mortgage companies should have the ability to work with you to refinance the home at it’s current market value and get their difference from the bailout.  Again, I do not see this as being any different from a judge ordering a bank to make a new mortgage to keep someone in their home.  The difference here is, it gives us, the home owners the ability to be proactive and not allow our credit histories to become trashed.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I strongly believe our government is forgetting about the portion of the population that still pays taxes and tries to live a responsible life.  To ignore their needs, which were created by the irresponsible banks and borrowers, is a crime in my book and it should not go unrecognized or unpunished.

Popularity: 33% [?]