Connect with us

Spread & Containment

Tesla, the Largest-Cap Stock Ever to Enter S&P 500: A Buy Signal or a Bubble?

Tesla, the Largest-Cap Stock Ever to Enter S&P 500: A Buy Signal or a Bubble? by Rob Arnott, Vitali Kalesnik, Lillian Wu Q3 2020 hedge fund letters, conferences and more Key Points Tesla is entering the S&P 500 with a stupendously high valuation..

Published

on

Tesla S&P 500

Tesla, the Largest-Cap Stock Ever to Enter S&P 500: A Buy Signal or a Bubble? by Rob Arnott, Vitali Kalesnik, Lillian Wu

Get The Full Ray Dalio Series in PDF

Get the entire 10-part series on Ray Dalio in PDF. Save it to your desktop, read it on your tablet, or email to your colleagues

Q3 2020 hedge fund letters, conferences and more

Key Points

  • Tesla is entering the S&P 500 with a stupendously high valuation and will likely be ranked sixth in the index. Traditional cap-weighted indices, such as the S&P 500, are structured to buy high and sell low—and Tesla is a prime example of this maxim.
  • The eightfold increase in Tesla’s share price since its March low meets our two-part definition of a bubble: 1) implausible assumptions are needed to justify its valuation, and 2) buyer interest is based on a great narrative rather than being supported by a conventional valuation model.
  • Our research shows that a continuation of Tesla’s 2020 share-price performance is vulnerable on two additional fronts: 1) as a top-dog stock (top 10 market-cap stocks), the odds are against its remaining a top-dog stock, and 2) as an addition to the S&P 500, history indicates it is likely to underperform the market (S&P 500) in the year after entry.
  • Our research also demonstrates that Apartment Investment and Management, the stock removed from the S&P 500 to make way for Tesla, is likely to outperform the index over the next year by as much as 20%, based on the average outperformance of all deletions from the index in the 31-year period from October 1987 through December 2017.

Rob Arnott is the corresponding author.

Tesla Will Enter The S&P 500 Index On December 21

On November 16, S&P Dow Jones Indices announced that Tesla will (finally) join the prestigious S&P 500 Index on December 21. From the beginning of 2020 to the announcement date, Tesla’s share price rose 400% from $83.67 to $408.09. Most of that run-up occurred after the media began speculating in March about Tesla’s likely addition to the index. From the announcement date through December 7, Tesla’s share price rose another 49% to $608.32. That’s an eightfold increase from its March low.

Given Tesla’s very large market-cap, the US Index Committee, which maintains the S&P 500, did consider a gradual transition into the index rather than adding the company’s full weight at one time. Currently about $11 trillion in assets track the index,1 and a substantial portion will seek to buy Tesla at the exact closing price on December 21. On December 1 the Index Committee announced that Tesla will be added all in one go, which prompted another 10% share-price increase the following week. The result is that founder Elon Musk now has the second-largest fortune in history. For now, only Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, is wealthier.

Tesla will be the largest stock to enter the S&P 500 in the history of the index, by both rank (likely the sixth largest company in the index2) and absolute market capitalization ($608 billion as of the December 7, 2020, market close).3 By the close of trading on December 21, index funds, ETFs, and other index-tracking strategies will have purchased Tesla shares valued at nearly $220 billion, most seeking to trade at the opening price.4 To make way for this purchase, these funds and strategies will sell a similar dollar amount from the other 505 stocks in the index (corporate actions have pushed the number of S&P 500 holdings to 505 names). At well under 1% of the outstanding market-cap of these companies, the requisite sales are not likely to precipitate major price moves.

Because Tesla’s addition to the index is not a secret, we can comfortably surmise that hedge fund managers and other liquidity suppliers have already stockpiled most of the $220 billion and are ready to supply the shares to the indexers for this largest single trade in history. What does it all mean for investors?

Tesla: The Bull Scenario

Tesla is a great company run by a great visionary. Elon Musk, its leader, has a long history of initiating multiple disruptive start-ups and driving them to success. PayPal, SpaceX, The Boring Company, Neuralink, OpenAI, and of course, Tesla are just a few of the companies Musk has played a key role in launching. Tesla, the electric vehicle and clean energy company, is a true pioneer in its space.

Tesla’s production and sales have grown at a spectacular pace. From 2016 to 2019, Tesla’s unit car sales grew an average of 61% a year. Tesla dominates the Electric Vehicle (EV) market, sometimes called the Fully Electric Vehicle market as a means to distinguish fully electric cars from hybrid cars. Extrapolating data from the first three quarters of 2020, we project Tesla will sell 425,000 cars this year, equal to 29% of market share of current global EV production.5 Even its automotive competitors admit Tesla has state-of-the-art technologies in battery design and EV production that competitors will not match for some time to come.

“Tesla’s market-cap is currently high enough to buy the automakers responsible for more than 2/3 of global car production.”

Several countries, including Denmark, Norway, and the United Kingdom, among others, plan to phase out internal combustion vehicles in the years ahead amid concerns around global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Fleets of autonomous cars are coming reasonably soon and they will presumably all be electric. As a result, Tesla finds itself particularly well suited for the move toward a greener future. Tesla’s leading position and competitive advantage in the EV space—Elon Musk’s demonstrated ability to deliver on promises of past fast production growth—have all contributed to Tesla’s stupendous valuation.

But, But, But...

What else could we buy with $608 billion? Let’s consider the EV market. Renault-Nissan, Volkswagen, and Hyundai-Kia are the second, third, and fourth largest EV producers with 13%, 11%, and 8%, respectively, of EV market share.6 Combined, these three organizations are responsible for 32% of EV market share, about 10% larger than Tesla (and growing roughly as fast), but together are valued at $172 billion, barely one-fourth of Tesla’s value. Of course, these entities produce a lot more than just electric vehicles. The equivalent of Tesla’s current valuation can buy not only all of the electric vehicles these three organizations sell (actually 10% more than Tesla produces), but also about 27 million of the non-electric vehicles they sell each year, close to 60 times Tesla’s likely 2020 EV sales, with $436 billion to spare!

And what could we buy using the total $608 billion of Tesla’s market-cap? How about the “Nifty Nine,” the nine largest car manufacturers in the world—Toyota, Volkswagen, Renault-Nissan, General Motors, Hyundai-Kia, SAIC, Honda, Ford, and Fiat Chrysler?7 Yes, that’s right, and we would still have $15 billion left over, enough to buy around 300,000 Tesla cars for our closest friends and family. Advocates for Tesla will point out that in 1999 Amazon’s value exceeded that of all other book retailers in the world. Fair enough. But what is Tesla’s strategy for taking over vast swaths of other already profitable industries?

https://www.corona-stocks.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/ce271ff19f5175dfee8b1857b7a22b45.png

How do Tesla’s sales compare to sales of the other automakers? The Nifty Nine are slated to sell roughly 51 million vehicles in 2020, roughly two-thirds of global production, or about 121 times Tesla’s expected sales. The most generously priced major auto company, Toyota,8 is valued at about $19,000 per car based on the company’s current annual production rate, or a bit under $2,000 when we consider Toyota’s total production over the last decade. The valuations of other major automakers on a per car basis lag far behind Toyota’s per car valuation. Moreover, the 1-to-121 ratio of Tesla's to Nifty Nine's car sales is conservative. Global car sales are expected to suffer a 22% decline in 2020 relative to 2019 due to the COVID-19 pandemic (Wayland, 2020), but Tesla’s target market was much less sensitive to pandemic pressures that slowed demand. When we compare Tesla’s 2020 sales to the Nifty Nine’s 2019 sales—a sales level likely to resume after the pandemic eases—the ratio rises to 1 to 161!

By contrast, Tesla is worth about $1.4 million for every car the company is expected to produce this year and around $500,000 for every car the company has produced over its history. Tesla’s valuation, per dollar of revenue, per dollar of profit, or per car produced, is well over 100 times that of the Nifty Nine. This analysis of sales is, of course, based on past performance; Tesla’s high valuation reflects expectations of future high growth in sales and margins.

Tesla: The Bear Scenario

Tesla’s market capitalization is currently large enough to buy the automakers responsible for more than two-thirds of global car production. Following the discounted cash-flow model, what assumptions would we need to make to justify the valuations of Tesla and the rest of the automotive industry? Current valuations would require that Tesla sell 100 times as many cars as it now does, with the highest profit margin in the automotive industry. Does that seem plausible?

Tesla just turned profitable in 2020, which is good news for Tesla as a company because it no longer faces immediate threats of violating its loan covenants. At the same time, however, its gross margins are roughly on par with those of Toyota or Volkswagen—the industry leaders—and this is bad news for Tesla’s share price. In 2020, the year the COVID-19 pandemic swept the globe, Tesla’s net margins benefited from carbon credit sales far more than from auto sales. Can its net margin soar from current levels? That’s not as straightforward an analysis as extrapolating the recent trend.

s&p 500 Tesla

In Arnott, Cornell, and Shepherd (2018), we proposed a two-part definition for a market or asset bubble that can be applied in real time, rather than just with 20/20 hindsight. The first part of our definition to confirm a bubble is that in using a discounted cash-flow or similar valuation model, we would need implausible assumptions to justify the market’s or asset’s current price. The second part of the definition is satisfied when a marginal buyer is not interested in conventional valuation models and is content to buy based on a narrative or story that foretells great future success (and price increases) for the market or asset. Based on our definition, Apple’s current lofty valuation doesn’t qualify as a bubble (on either count), but Tesla’s does.9

“[Tesla is a prime example of] traditional capitalization-weighted indices routinely adding companies with share prices at high market valuations.”

What assumptions would justify Tesla’s current valuation? Suppose Tesla sales grow by 50% a year over the next 10 years. That means its sales would need to increase 58 times over anticipated 2020 sales.10 The company’s current margin is not high enough to justify the 100 times multiplier over the rest of the industry. Suppose that in 2030 Tesla has a 10% net margin, higher than any existing auto company and 47% higher than its most recent 6.8% net margin. Nope, still not good enough. A 10% net margin would make Tesla “only” 85 times larger than it is today, not 121 times larger. Such high growth persisting over a full decade is implausible. Amazon’s growth rate over the last 3, 5, and 10 years has been in the high 20s, nowhere near 50% a year. Tesla’s own three-year revenue growth rate is 33% (the revenue growth was far slower than the 61% unit car sales growth), so 50%—for a full decade—is a major acceleration over its stupendous recent growth. Our analysis examines terminal value only. In order to justify Tesla’s current valuation, the assumptions about its sales and margin growth need to be even more aggressive.

Bubbles almost always burst. But, as we observed in 2018, shorting a bubble stock is very dangerous. Bubbles can last longer and carry valuations higher than we investors could possibly imagine and can outlast our capital.

The Electric Vehicle Industry

Many limitations hinder the growth of the EV market. An international survey conducted by Deloitte (Hamilton et al., 2020) identified four challenges for EV adoption: driving range, time to charge, lack of charging infrastructure, and high cost. These challenges are ongoing and likely to curtail Tesla’s growth. Despite these challenges Tesla has grown very fast as has the EV production of its competitors. But can these growth rates continue?

The largest car manufacturers have these electrification plans in place:

  • Toyota is targeting cumulative sales of 5.5 million fully electric vehicles by 2025 with sales of 0.5 million in that year alone. In 2020 Toyota entered a joint venture with BYD, a Chinese manufacturer of electric vehicles and the second-largest producer of lithium-ion batteries in the world. The purpose of the joint venture has the dual purpose of solidifying Toyota’s place in the pure EV space and of accessing the fast-growing Chinese market.
  • Hyundai group plans to invest $87 billion in the electrification of its vehicles by 2025 and expand the range of its EV models to 44 over the same period. In June 2020 it entered a partnership with LG, the world’s largest battery producer, to collaborate on EV batteries.
  • Volkswagen (VW) plans to invest €33 billion in electric vehicles by 2023 with the goal of 1 million in EV sales through 2023. The VW group expects to have 70 new electric models by 2028 and is targeting 40% of its global sales to be in electric vehicles by 2030.
  • Ford plans to invest $11.5 billion in EV research, development, and production by 2022 to meet its goal of having 40 EV models in its global portfolio by that date.
  • General Motors is currently on track to meet its 20 EV-model range by 2023 and plans for all Cadillac vehicles to be electric by 2030.
  • Renault-Nissan group plans to have 8 EV models by 2022 and expects 42% of the group’s total vehicles sold in Europe will be electric by 2022.

The full list of manufacturers’ plans is quite extensive, because most leading car manufacturers have very serious plans for the electrification of car production. These plans will be aided through governmental support of the many nations these companies represent. For example, the government of Japan is earmarking about $19.2 billion to support decarbonization technologies in Japan to be spent on developing national infrastructure and research and development. One area of research these funds will likely target is the development of solid-state batteries, a technology with higher energy density, faster charging time, and lower risk of fire compared to the standard lithium-ion technology. Recently Toyota revealed its serious progress in solid-state battery technology, which allows a 500-kilometer range with 10-minute charging time and few safety concerns. Toyota plans to launch a prototype of the vehicle in 2021 and to begin production relatively soon thereafter.11

Tesla will not remain unchallenged as the EV industry leader for long. Tesla—a disruptor—has shaken up the industry, but as yet is showing no signs of driving out any of the existing players. Strong competition has ensured that car manufacturers have become very skilled in areas such as branding for specific market niches, understanding consumer psychology, providing customer financing, and servicing vehicles. The financial footprint of the car manufacturing industry is huge, having a global reach and strategic importance to many national economies. This translates into strong lobbying and other forms of government support that provide existing car manufacturers numerous competitive and business advantages.

Finally, might we have global overinvestment in electric vehicles? The impediments to EV adoption, such as a lack of charging infrastructure, are not going to be resolved any time soon. Demand, therefore, may not keep pace with soaring supply, which would be bad news for Tesla’s sales and margins because the company’s book of business is not particularly well diversified.

S&P 500 Buying Party ... Tesla Boom or Hangover?

How will Tesla’s addition to the S&P 500 impact TSLA's price performance? As of June 30, 2020, $4.6 trillion assets were tracking the S&P 500 directly and an additional $6.6 trillion were benchmarked to it. Indexers often claim their trading does not move share prices. So, if Tesla shares are bought at 9:30:00 am (EST), and the price is no different from the price at 9:30:01 or the last after-hours trade before 9:30 am, should we believe that the index funds did not move the price? Based on this highly deceptive scenario, the trade would not appear to have an impact. But prior to the trade, hedge funds and other liquidity providers had pushed up the share price—by 700% since the March lows—accumulating the shares they needed to offer the indexers on December 21.

The correct measure of the indexers’ impact is a company’s share-price rise in the days following the announcement date that it will be added to the index until the effective date when the stock enters the index. Our earlier research (Arnott, Kalesnik, and Wu, 2018), covering the period from October 1987 through December 2017, demonstrated that in the few days between announcement date and effective date, the stock to be added beats the S&P 500 by roughly 1,000 basis points on average. Much of the share-price increase is likely driven by the buying pressure from hedge funds and other investors who are buying the stock ahead of S&P 500 indexers.

In our 2018 study, we found the S&P 500 additions, on average, win big before they are added and discretionary deletions lose big before they are dropped. The average addition to the index typically rises 43% relative to the market (S&P 500) in the 12 months prior to the close of the rebalancing day. If the addition is a mega-cap (ranking in the top 100 or higher by market capitalization), the average gain is 127%. Conversely, the average deletion loses 31% over the same time span.

Traditional capitalization-weighted indices routinely add companies with share prices at high market valuations—unloved companies simply do not garner the attention of the index committee. In contrast, the shares of companies the index sells to make way for newcomers usually trade at a deep discount. On average, the valuation spread between the two—based on a blend of price-to-book, price-to-earnings, and price-to-sales ratios—is roughly threefold: additions trade at a 200% valuation premium to the dropped stocks. (Hence, we titled our 2018 article “Buy High and Sell Low with Index Funds!”)

TSLA

The pattern reverses in the year after an index change. The average addition rises an additional 1% relative to the market on the day after it is added to the index, then loses about 2% relative to the market over the following year. If the addition is a mega-cap, there is a 2% follow-through share-price rise the day after the effective date, followed by a drop of 7% over the next year (Arnott, Kalesnik, and Wu, 2018).

Our research further shows that the average deletion drops 1% more the day after its removal from the index, then beats the market by an average of 20% over the next year. The S&P 500 is designed to buy high and sell low, which results in a performance gap of 24% between additions of mega-cap stocks and discretionary deletions from the day after the change is made until 12 months later.On December 11, 10 days ahead of the index rebalance date (December 21) on which Tesla is scheduled to enter the S&P 500, the S&P index committee announced it is dropping Apartment Investment and Management (Aimco) (NYSE:AIV) to free up space for Tesla. AIV’s price has dropped 36%, lagging the market by 52%, in the 12 months before the announcement of its removal from the S&P 500. This price decrease is likely a key reason the S&P index committee decided to drop it.

AIV’s price fell further, by more than 4%, in the  after-market trading session following the December 11 announcement it would be removed from the index. Both Tesla and Aimco followed the familiar pattern: Tesla’s share price surged, while Aimco's share price plummeted before the index adjustment date. If history is a guide, the prospects for each of these stocks may substantially reverse over the next year, with Tesla underperforming and Aimco recovering nicely.

Our 2018 research showed that the performance gap between index additions and deletions is stronger for the additions with the largest capitalization. But Tesla is not just a mega-cap company—after the S&P decision on November 16, it ranked sixth among all US public companies in terms of capitalization. Previously, the number six position in the S&P 500 was held by Berkshire Hathaway, a company with 7 times Tesla’s last quarterly revenue (third quarter 2020) and 91 times Tesla’s last quarterly net income.

Tesla’s size raises another point of concern: typically, only 2 to 3 of the top 10 stocks ranked by global market-cap remain in that list 10 years later (Arnott, Kalesnik, and Wu, 2018). Importantly, the 7 or 8 companies that drop off the top 10 list over the following decade all underperform the newcomers to the list 10 years later. Contributing drivers to the aging and fading top dogs’ decline are 1) more directed competition after becoming a top dog; 2) greater regulation seeking to extract revenues from perceived cash cows and seeking control over perceived predatory practices; and 3) the likely overvaluation that drove these companies to top-dog status in the first place. The top-dog status of Tesla further tilts the odds of price underperformance, and not in Tesla’s favor.

Conclusion

Tesla is an impressive company in an influential and fast-growing market segment. The company has unique brand and technological advantages in the electric vehicle space. Yet it is far from the only player in the EV industry—existing automakers already produce more than twice as many electric vehicles as Tesla and have plans to invest many tens of billions of dollars in electrification. Nevertheless, Tesla is likely to remain a leader, perhaps the leader, in this space, if the company is not disrupted by an innovative newcomer.12

The top nine automakers, whose combined market-cap equals that of Tesla, produce 121 times as many cars as Tesla. Tesla, however, is priced at a valuation larger than these Nifty Nine, who produce just over 70% of the global automotive, truck, and motorcycle industry. Tesla’s skyhigh valuation helps the company by providing cheap capital for new investment and a cash buffer to ward off creditors. It also serves as a convenient ATM for Elon Musk should he need a billion or two to fund his next futuristic project.

A partial driver of Tesla’s eightfold increase in price since its most recent March low was the crowd of COVID-19 locked-down gamblers who, having to forego Las Vegas or Monte Carlo, turned their attention to hot stocks instead. Tesla’s valuation was arguably further boosted through much of 2020 by its pending inclusion in the S&P 500 Index. Given all the classical signs of a bubble in Tesla’s stock, and the evidence of 31 years of S&P additions and deletions, December 21–22 likely marks the beginning of a reversal in Tesla’s share price. Similarly, Apartment Investment and Management, the company that Tesla replaces in the index, is apt to enjoy its own reversal of fortune as its share price rises over the next year. Investors guided by history may wish to take advantage of this opportunity to buy low and sell high!

Appendix: Summary of Top 20 Automakers by Market Cap, Car Sales, and Revenues

TSLA

The post Tesla, the Largest-Cap Stock Ever to Enter S&P 500: A Buy Signal or a Bubble? appeared first on ValueWalk.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Students lose out as cities and states give billions in property tax breaks to businesses − draining school budgets and especially hurting the poorest students

An estimated 95% of US cities provide economic development tax incentives to woo corporate investors, taking billions away from schools.

Published

on

By

Exxon Mobil Corp.'s campus in East Baton Rouge Parish, left, received millions in tax abatements to the detriment of local schools, right. Barry Lewis/Getty Images, Tjean314/Wikimedia

Built in 1910, James Elementary is a three-story brick school in Kansas City, Missouri’s historic Northeast neighborhood, with a bright blue front door framed by a sand-colored stone arch adorned with a gargoyle. As bustling students and teachers negotiate a maze of gray stairs with worn wooden handrails, Marjorie Mayes, the school’s principal, escorts a visitor across uneven blue tile floors on the ground floor to a classroom with exposed brick walls and pipes. Bubbling paint mars some walls, evidence of the water leaks spreading inside the aging building.

“It’s living history,” said Mayes during a mid-September tour of the building. “Not the kind of living history we want.”

The district would like to tackle the US$400 million in deferred maintenance needed to create a 21st century learning environment at its 35 schools – including James Elementary – but it can’t. It doesn’t have the money.

Property tax redirect

The lack of funds is a direct result of the property tax breaks that Kansas City lavishes on companies and developers that do business there. The program is supposed to bring in new jobs and business but instead has ended up draining civic coffers and starving schools. Between 2017 and 2023, the Kansas City school district lost $237.3 million through tax abatements.

Kansas City is hardly an anomaly. An estimated 95% of U.S. cities provide economic development tax incentives to woo corporate investors. The upshot is that billions have been diverted from large urban school districts and from a growing number of small suburban and rural districts. The impact is seen in districts as diverse as Chicago and Cleveland, Hillsboro, Oregon, and Storey County, Nevada.

The result? A 2021 review of 2,498 financial statements from school districts across 27 states revealed that, in 2019 alone, at least $2.4 billion was diverted to fund tax incentives. Yet that substantial figure still downplays the magnitude of the problem, because three-quarters of the 10,370 districts analyzed did not provide any information on tax abatement agreements.

Tax abatement programs have long been controversial, pitting states and communities against one another in beggar-thy-neighbor contests. Their economic value is also, at best, unclear: Studies show most companies would have made the same location decision without taxpayer subsidies. Meanwhile, schools make up the largest cost item in these communities, meaning they suffer most when companies are granted breaks in property taxes.

A three-month investigation by The Conversation and three scholars with expertise in economic development, tax laws and education policy shows that the cash drain from these programs is not equally shared by schools in the same communities. At the local level, tax abatements and exemptions often come at the cost of critical funding for school districts that disproportionately serve students from low-income households and who are racial minorities.

In Missouri, for example, in 2022 nearly $1,700 per student was redirected from Kansas City public and charter schools, while between $500 and $900 was redirected from wealthier, whiter Northland schools on the north side of the river in Kansas City and in the suburbs beyond. Other studies have found similar demographic trends elsewhere, including New York state, South Carolina and Columbus, Ohio.

The funding gaps produced by abated money often force schools to delay needed maintenance, increase class sizes, lay off teachers and support staff and even close outright. Schools also struggle to update or replace outdated technology, books and other educational resources. And, amid a nationwide teacher shortage, schools under financial pressures sometimes turn to inexperienced teachers who are not fully certified or rely too heavily on recruits from overseas who have been given special visa status.

Lost funding also prevents teachers and staff, who often feed, clothe and otherwise go above and beyond to help students in need, from earning a living wage. All told, tax abatements can end up harming a community’s value, with constant funding shortfalls creating a cycle of decline.

Incentives, payoffs and guarantees

Perversely, some of the largest beneficiaries of tax abatements are the politicians who publicly boast of handing out the breaks despite the harm to poorer communities. Incumbent governors have used the incentives as a means of taking credit for job creation, even when the jobs were coming anyway.

“We know that subsidies don’t work,” said Elizabeth Marcello, a doctoral lecturer at Hunter College who studies governmental planning and policy and the interactions between state and local governments. “But they are good political stories, and I think that’s why politicians love them so much.”

Academic research shows that economic development incentives are ineffective most of the time – and harm school systems.

While some voters may celebrate abatements, parents can recognize the disparities between school districts that are created by the tax breaks. Fairleigh Jackson pointed out that her daughter’s East Baton Rouge third grade class lacks access to playground equipment.

The class is attending school in a temporary building while their elementary school undergoes a two-year renovation.

The temporary site has some grass and a cement slab where kids can play, but no playground equipment, Jackson said. And parents needed to set up an Amazon wish list to purchase basic equipment such as balls, jump ropes and chalk for students to use. The district told parents there would be no playground equipment due to a lack of funds, then promised to install equipment, Jackson said, but months later, there is none.

Cement surface surrounded by a fence with grass beyond. There's no playground equipment..
The temporary site where Fairleigh Jackson’s daughter goes to school in East Baton Rouge Parish lacks playground equipment. Fairleigh Jackson, CC BY-ND

Jackson said it’s hard to complain when other schools in the district don’t even have needed security measures in place. “When I think about playground equipment, I think that’s a necessary piece of child development,” Jackson said. “Do we even advocate for something that should be a daily part of our kids’ experience when kids’ safety isn’t being funded?”

Meanwhile, the challenges facing administrators 500-odd miles away at Atlanta Public Schools are nothing if not formidable: The district is dealing with chronic absenteeism among half of its Black students, many students are experiencing homelessness, and it’s facing a teacher shortage.

At the same time, Atlanta is showering corporations with tax breaks. The city has two bodies that dole them out: the Development Authority of Fulton County, or DAFC, and Invest Atlanta, the city’s economic development agency. The deals handed out by the two agencies have drained $103.8 million from schools from fiscal 2017 to 2022, according to Atlanta school system financial statements.

What exactly Atlanta and other cities and states are accomplishing with tax abatement programs is hard to discern. Fewer than a quarter of companies that receive breaks in the U.S. needed an incentive to invest, according to a 2018 study by the Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, a nonprofit research organization.

This means that at least 75% of companies received tax abatements when they’re not needed – with communities paying a heavy price for economic development that sometimes provides little benefit.

In Kansas City, for example, there’s no guarantee that the businesses that do set up shop after receiving a tax abatement will remain there long term. That’s significant considering the historic border war between the Missouri and Kansas sides of Kansas City – a competition to be the most generous to the businesses, said Jason Roberts, president of the Kansas City Federation of Teachers and School-Related Personnel. Kansas City, Missouri, has a 1% income tax on people who work in the city, so it competes for as many workers as possible to secure that earnings tax, Roberts said.

Under city and state tax abatement programs, companies that used to be in Kansas City have since relocated. The AMC Theaters headquarters, for example, moved from the city’s downtown to Leawood, Kansas, about a decade ago, garnering some $40 million in Promoting Employment Across Kansas tax incentives.

Roberts said that when one side’s financial largesse runs out, companies often move across the state line – until both states decided in 2019 that enough was enough and declared a cease-fire.

But tax breaks for other businesses continue. “Our mission is to grow the economy of Kansas City, and application of tools such as tax exemptions are vital to achieving that mission, said Jon Stephens, president and CEO of Port KC, the Kansas City Port Authority. The incentives speed development, and providing them "has resulted in growth choosing KC versus other markets,” he added.

In Atlanta, those tax breaks are not going to projects in neighborhoods that need help attracting development. They have largely been handed out to projects that are in high demand areas of the city, said Julian Bene, who served on Invest Atlanta’s board from 2010 to 2018. In 2019, for instance, the Fulton County development authority approved a 10-year, $16 million tax abatement for a 410-foot-tall, 27,000-square-foot tower in Atlanta’s vibrant Midtown business district. The project included hotel space, retail space and office space that is now occupied by Google and Invesco.

In 2021, a developer in Atlanta pulled its request for an $8 million tax break to expand its new massive, mixed-use Ponce City Market development in the trendy Beltline neighborhood with an office tower and apartment building. Because of community pushback, the developer knew it likely did not have enough votes from the commission for approval, Bene said. After a second try for $5 million in lower taxes was also rejected, the developer went ahead and built the project anyway.

Invest Atlanta has also turned down projects in the past, Bene said. Oftentimes, after getting rejected, the developer goes back to the landowner and asks for a better price to buy the property to make their numbers work, because it was overvalued at the start.

Trouble in Philadelphia

On Thursday, Oct. 26, 2023, an environmental team was preparing Southwark School in Philadelphia for the winter cold. While checking an attic fan, members of the team saw loose dust on top of flooring that contained asbestos. The dust that certainly was blowing into the floors below could contain the cancer-causing agent. Within a day, Southwark was closed – the seventh Philadelphia school temporarily shuttered since the previous academic year because of possible asbestos contamination.

A 2019 inspection of the John L Kinsey school in Philadelphia found asbestos in plaster walls, floor tiles, radiator insulation and electrical panels. Asbestos is a major problem for Philadelphia’s public schools. The district needs $430 million to clean up the asbestos, lead, and other environmental hazards that place the health of students, teachers and staff at risk. And that is on top of an additional $2.4 billion to fix failing and damaged buildings.

Yet the money is not available. Matthew Stem, a former district official, testified in a 2023 lawsuit about financing of Pennsylvania schools that the environmental health risks cannot be addressed until an emergency like at Southwark because “existing funding sources are not sufficient to remediate those types of issues.”

Meanwhile, the city keeps doling out abatements, draining money that could have gone toward making Philadelphia schools safer. In the fiscal year ending June 2022, such tax breaks cost the school district $118 million – more than 25% of the total amount needed to remove the asbestos and other health dangers. These abatements take 31 years to break even, according to the city’s own scenario impact analyses.

Huge subsets of the community – primarily Black, Brown, poor or a combination – are being “drastically impacted” by the exemptions and funding shortfalls for the school district, said Kendra Brooks, a Philadelphia City Council member. Schools and students are affected by mold, asbestos and lead, and crumbling infrastructure, as well as teacher and staffing shortages – including support staff, social workers and psychologists.

More than half the district’s schools that lacked adequate air conditioning – 87 schools – had to go to half days during the first week of the 2023 school year because of extreme heat. Poor heating systems also leave the schools cold in the winter. And some schools are overcrowded, resulting in large class sizes, she said.

Front of a four-story brick school building with tall windows, some with air-conditioners
Horace Furness High School in Philadelphia, where hot summers have temporarily closed schools that lack air conditioning. Nick-philly/Wikimedia, CC BY-SA

Teachers and researchers agree that a lack of adequate funding undermines educational opportunities and outcomes. That’s especially true for children living in poverty. A 2016 study found that a 10% increase in per-pupil spending each year for all 12 years of public schooling results in nearly one-third of a year of more education, 7.7% higher wages and a 3.2% reduction in annual incidence of adult poverty. The study estimated that a 21.7% increase could eliminate the high school graduation gap faced by children from low-income families.

More money for schools leads to more education resources for students and their teachers. The same researchers found that spending increases were associated with reductions in student-to-teacher ratios, increases in teacher salaries and longer school years. Other studies yielded similar results: School funding matters, especially for children already suffering the harms of poverty.

While tax abatements themselves are generally linked to rising property values, the benefits are not evenly distributed. In fact, any expansion of the tax base due to new property construction tends to be outside of the county granting the tax abatement. For families in school districts with the lost tax revenues, their neighbors’ good fortune likely comes as little solace. Meanwhile, a poorly funded education system is less likely to yield a skilled and competitive workforce, creating longer-term economic costs that make the region less attractive for businesses and residents.

“There’s a head-on collision here between private gain and the future quality of America’s workforce,” said Greg LeRoy, executive director at Good Jobs First, a Washington, D.C., advocacy group that’s critical of tax abatement and tracks the use of economic development subsidies.

Three-story school building with police officers out front and traffic lights in the foreground
Roxborough High School in Philadelphia. AP Photo/Matt Rourke

As funding dwindles and educational quality declines, additional families with means often opt for alternative educational avenues such as private schooling, home-schooling or moving to a different school district, further weakening the public school system.

Throughout the U.S., parents with the power to do so demand special arrangements, such as selective schools or high-track enclaves that hire experienced, fully prepared teachers. If demands aren’t met, they leave the district’s public schools for private schools or for the suburbs. Some parents even organize to splinter their more advantaged, and generally whiter, neighborhoods away from the larger urban school districts.

Those parental demands – known among scholars as “opportunity hoarding” – may seem unreasonable from the outside, but scarcity breeds very real fears about educational harms inflicted on one’s own children. Regardless of who’s to blame, the children who bear the heaviest burden of the nation’s concentrated poverty and racialized poverty again lose out.

Rethinking in Philadelphia and Riverhead

Americans also ask public schools to accomplish Herculean tasks that go far beyond the education basics, as many parents discovered at the onset of the pandemic when schools closed and their support for families largely disappeared.

A school serving students who endure housing and food insecurity must dedicate resources toward children’s basic needs and trauma. But districts serving more low-income students spend less per student on average, and almost half the states have regressive funding structures.

Facing dwindling resources for schools, several cities have begun to rethink their tax exemption programs.

The Philadelphia City Council recently passed a scale-back on a 10-year property tax abatement by decreasing the percentage of the subsidy over that time. But even with that change, millions will be lost to tax exemptions that could instead be invested in cash-depleted schools. “We could make major changes in our schools’ infrastructure, curriculum, staffing, staffing ratios, support staff, social workers, school psychologists – take your pick,” Brooks said.

Other cities looking to reform tax abatement programs are taking a different approach. In Riverhead, New York, on Long Island, developers or project owners can be granted exemptions on their property tax and allowed instead to shell out a far smaller “payment in lieu of taxes,” or PILOT. When the abatement ends, most commonly after 10 years, the businesses then will pay full property taxes.

At least, that’s the idea, but the system is far from perfect. Beneficiaries of the PILOT program have failed to pay on time, leaving the school board struggling to fill a budget hole. Also, the payments are not equal to the amount they would receive for property taxes, with millions of dollars in potential revenue over a decade being cut to as little as a few hundred thousand. On the back end, if a business that’s subsidized with tax breaks fails after 10 years, the projected benefits never emerge.

And when the time came to start paying taxes, developers have returned to the city’s Industrial Development Agency with hat in hand, asking for more tax breaks. A local for-profit aquarium, for example, was granted a 10-year PILOT program break by Riverhead in 1999; it has received so many extensions that it is not scheduled to start paying full taxes until 2031 – 22 years after originally planned.

Kansas City border politics

Like many cities, Kansas City has a long history of segregation, white flight and racial redlining, said Kathleen Pointer, senior policy strategist for Kansas City Public Schools.

James Elementary in Kansas City, Mo. Danielle McLean, CC BY-ND

Troost Avenue, where the Kansas City Public Schools administrative office is located, serves as the city’s historic racial dividing line, with wealthier white families living in the west and more economically disadvantaged people of color in the east. Most of the district’s schools are located east of Troost, not west.

Students on the west side “pretty much automatically funnel into the college preparatory middle school and high schools,” said The Federation of Teachers’ Roberts. Those schools are considered signature schools that are selective and are better taken care of than the typical neighborhood schools, he added.

The school district’s tax levy was set by voters in 1969 at 3.75%. But successive attempts over the next few decades to increase the levy at the ballot box failed. During a decadeslong desegregation lawsuit that was eventually resolved through a settlement agreement in the 1990s, a court raised the district’s levy rate to 4.96% without voter approval. The levy has remained at the same 4.96% rate since.

Meanwhile, Kansas City is still distributing 20-year tax abatements to companies and developers for projects. The district calculated that about 92% of the money that was abated within the school district’s boundaries was for projects within the whiter west side of the city, Pointer said.

“Unfortunately, we can’t pick or choose where developers build,” said Meredith Hoenes, director of communications for Port KC. “We aren’t planning and zoning. Developers typically have plans in place when they knock on our door.”

In Kansas City, several agencies administer tax incentives, allowing developers to shop around to different bodies to receive one. Pointer said he believes the Port Authority is popular because they don’t do a third-party financial analysis to prove that the developers need the amount that they say they do.

With 20-year abatements, a child will start pre-K and graduate high school before seeing the benefits of a property being fully on the tax rolls, Pointer said. Developers, meanwhile, routinely threaten to build somewhere else if they don’t get the incentive, she said.

In 2020, BlueScope Construction, a company that had received tax incentives for nearly 20 years and was about to roll off its abatement, asked for another 13 years and threatened to move to another state if it didn’t get it. At the time, the U.S. was grappling with a racial reckoning following the murder of George Floyd, who was killed by a Minneapolis police officer.

“That was a moment for Kansas City Public Schools where we really drew a line in the sand and talked about incentives as an equity issue,” Pointer said.

After the district raised the issue – tying the incentives to systemic racism – the City Council rejected BlueScope’s bid and, three years later, it’s still in Kansas City, fully on the tax rolls, she said. BlueScope did not return multiple requests for comment.

Recently, a multifamily housing project was approved for a 20-year tax abatement by the Port Authority of Kansas City at Country Club Plaza, an outdoor shopping center in an affluent part of the city. The housing project included no affordable units. “This project was approved without any independent financial analysis proving that it needed that subsidy,” Pointer said.

All told, the Kansas City Public Schools district faces several shortfalls beyond the $400 million in deferred maintenance, Superintendent Jennifer Collier said. There are staffing shortages at all positions: teachers, paraprofessionals and support staff. As in much of the U.S., the cost of housing is surging. New developments that are being built do not include affordable housing, or when they do, the units are still out of reach for teachers.

That’s making it harder for a district that already loses about 1 in 5 of its teachers each year to keep or recruit new ones, who earn an average of only $46,150 their first year on the job, Collier said.

East Baton Rouge and the industrial corridor

It’s impossible to miss the tanks, towers, pipes and industrial structures that incongruously line Baton Rouge’s Scenic Highway landscape. They’re part of Exxon Mobil Corp.’s campus, home of the oil giant’s refinery in addition to chemical and plastics plants.

Aerial view of industrial buildings along a river
Exxon Mobil Corp.’s Baton Rouge campus occupies 3.28 square miles. AP Photo/Gerald Herbert

Sitting along the Mississippi River, the campus has been a staple of Louisiana’s capital for over 100 years. It’s where 6,000 employees and contractors who collectively earn over $400 million annually produce 522,000 barrels of crude oil per day when at full capacity, as well as the annual production and manufacture of 3 billion pounds of high-density polyethylene and polypropylene and 6.6 billion pounds of petrochemical products. The company posted a record-breaking $55.7 billion in profits in 2022 and $36 billion in 2023.

Across the street are empty fields and roads leading into neighborhoods that have been designated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as a low-income food desert. A mile drive down the street to Route 67 is a Dollar General, fast-food restaurants, and tiny, rundown food stores. A Hi Nabor Supermarket is 4 miles away.

East Baton Rouge Parish’s McKinley High School, a 12-minute drive from the refinery, serves a student body that is about 80% Black and 85% poor. The school, which boasts famous alums such as rapper Kevin Gates, former NBA player Tyrus Thomas and Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient Gardner C. Taylor, holds a special place in the community, but it has been beset by violence and tragedy lately. Its football team quarterback, who was killed days before graduation in 2017, was among at least four of McKinley’s students who have been shot or murdered over the past six years.

The experience is starkly different at some of the district’s more advantaged schools, including its magnet programs open to high-performing students.

Black-and-white outline of Louisiana showing the parishes, with one, near the bottom right, filled in red
East Baton Rouge Parish, marked in red, includes an Exxon Mobil Corp. campus and the city of Baton Rouge. David Benbennick/Wikimedia

Baton Rouge is a tale of two cities, with some of the worst outcomes in the state for education, income and mortality, and some of the best outcomes. “It was only separated by sometimes a few blocks,” said Edgar Cage, the lead organizer for the advocacy group Together Baton Rouge. Cage, who grew up in the city when it was segregated by Jim Crow laws, said the root cause of that disparity was racism.

“Underserved kids don’t have a path forward” in East Baton Rouge public schools, Cage said.

A 2019 report from the Urban League of Louisiana found that economically disadvantaged African American and Hispanic students are not provided equitable access to high-quality education opportunities. That has contributed to those students underperforming on standardized state assessments, such as the LEAP exam, being unprepared to advance to higher grades and being excluded from high-quality curricula and instruction, as well as the highest-performing schools and magnet schools.

“Baton Rouge is home to some of the highest performing schools in the state,” according to the report. “Yet the highest performing schools and schools that have selective admissions policies often exclude disadvantaged students and African American and Hispanic students.”

Dawn Collins, who served on the district’s school board from 2016 to 2022, said that with more funding, the district could provide more targeted interventions for students who were struggling academically or additional support to staff so they can better assist students with greater needs.

But for decades, Louisiana’s Industrial Ad Valorem Tax Exemption Program, or ITEP, allowed for 100% property tax exemptions for industrial manufacturing facilities, said Erin Hansen, the statewide policy analyst at Together Louisiana, a network of 250 religious and civic organizations across the state that advocates for grassroots issues, including tax fairness.

The ITEP program was created in the 1930s through a state constitutional amendment, allowing companies to bypass a public vote and get approval for the exemption through the governor-appointed Board of Commerce and Industry, Hansen said. For over 80 years, that board approved nearly all applications that it received, she said.

Since 2000, Louisiana has granted a total of $35 billion in corporate property tax breaks for 12,590 projects.

Louisiana’s executive order

A few efforts to reform the program over the years have largely failed. But in 2016, Gov. John Bel Edwards signed an executive order that slightly but importantly tweaked the system. On top of the state board vote, the order gave local taxing bodies – such as school boards, sheriffs and parish or city councils – the ability to vote on their own individual portions of the tax exemptions. And in 2019 the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board exercised its power to vote down an abatement.

Throughout the U.S., school boards’ power over the tax abatements that affect their budgets vary, and in some states, including Georgia, Kansas, Nevada, New Jersey and South Carolina, school boards lack any formal ability to vote or comment on tax abatement deals that affect them.

Edwards’ executive order also capped the maximum exemption at 80% and tightened the rules so routine capital investments and maintenance were no longer eligible, Hansen said. A requirement concerning job creation was also put in place.

Concerned residents and activists, led by Together Louisiana and sister group Together Baton Rouge, rallied around the new rules and pushed back against the billion-dollar corporation taking more tax money from the schools. In 2019, the campaign worked: the school board rejected a $2.9 million property tax break bid by Exxon Mobil.

After the decision, Exxon Mobil reportedly described the city as “unpredictable.”

However, members of the business community have continued to lobby for the tax breaks, and they have pushed back against further rejections. In fact, according to Hansen, loopholes were created during the rulemaking process around the governor’s executive order that allowed companies to weaken its effectiveness.

In total, 223 Exxon Mobil projects worth nearly $580 million in tax abatements have been granted in the state of Louisiana under the ITEP program since 2000.

“ITEP is needed to compete with other states – and, in ExxonMobil’s case, other countries,” according to Exxon Mobil spokesperson Lauren Kight.

She pointed out that Exxon Mobil is the largest property taxpayer for the EBR school system, paying more than $46 million in property taxes in EBR parish in 2022 and another $34 million in sales taxes.

A new ITEP contract won’t decrease this existing tax revenue, Kight added. “Losing out on future projects absolutely will.”

The East Baton Rouge Parish School Board has continued to approve Exxon Mobil abatements, passing $46.9 million between 2020 and 2022. Between 2017 and 2023, the school district has lost $96.3 million.

Taxes are highest when industrial buildings are first built. Industrial property comes onto the tax rolls at 40% to 50% of its original value in Louisiana after the initial 10-year exemption, according to the Ascension Economic Development Corp.

Exxon Mobil received its latest tax exemption, $8.6 million over 10 years – an 80% break – in October 2023 for $250 million to install facilities at the Baton Rouge complex that purify isopropyl alcohol for microchip production and that create a new advanced recycling facility, allowing the company to address plastic waste. The project created zero new jobs.

The school board approved it by a 7-2 vote after a long and occasionally contentious board meeting.

“Does it make sense for Louisiana and other economically disadvantaged states to kind of compete with each other by providing tax incentives to mega corporations like Exxon Mobil?” said EBR School Board Vice President Patrick Martin, who voted for the abatement. “Probably, in a macro sense, it does not make a lot of sense. But it is the program that we have.”

Obviously, Exxon Mobil benefits, he said. “The company gets a benefit in reducing the property taxes that they would otherwise pay on their industrial activity that adds value to that property.” But the community benefits from the 20% of the property taxes that are not exempted, he said.

“I believe if we don’t pass it, over time the investments will not come and our district as a whole will have less money,” he added.

In 2022, a year when Exxon Mobil made a record $55.7 billion, the company asked for a 10-year, 80% property tax break from the cash-starved East Baton Rouge Parish school district. A lively debate ensued.

Meanwhile, the district’s budgetary woes are coming to a head. Bus drivers staged a sickout at the start of the school year, refusing to pick up students – in protest of low pay and not having buses equipped with air conditioning amid a heat wave. The district was forced to release students early, leaving kids stranded without a ride to school, before it acquiesced and provided the drivers and other staff one-time stipends and purchased new buses with air conditioning.

The district also agreed to reestablish transfer points as a temporary response to the shortages. But that transfer-point plan has historically resulted in students riding on the bus for hours and occasionally missing breakfast when the bus arrives late, according to Angela Reams-Brown, president of the East Baton Rouge Federation of Teachers. The district plans to purchase or lease over 160 buses and solve its bus driver shortage next year, but the plan could lead to a budget crisis.

A teacher shortage looms as well, because the district is paying teachers below the regional average. At the school board meeting, Laverne Simoneaux, an ELL specialist at East Baton Rouge’s Woodlawn Elementary, said she was informed that her job was not guaranteed next year since she’s being paid through federal COVID-19 relief funds. By receiving tax exemptions, Exxon Mobil was taking money from her salary to deepen their pockets, she said.

A young student in the district told the school board that the money could provide better internet access or be used to hire someone to pick up the glass and barbed wire in the playground. But at least they have a playground – Hayden Crockett, a seventh grader at Sherwood Middle Academic Magnet School, noted that his sister’s elementary school lacked one.

“If it wasn’t in the budget to fund playground equipment, how can it also be in the budget to give one of the most powerful corporations in the world a tax break?” Crockett said. “The math just ain’t mathing.”

Christine Wen worked for the nonprofit organization Good Jobs First from June 2019 to May 2022 where she helped collect tax abatement data.

Nathan Jensen has received funding from the John and Laura Arnold Foundation, the Smith Richardson Foundation, the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation and the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. He is a Senior Fellow at the Niskanen Center.

Danielle McLean and Kevin Welner do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

Revving up tourism: Formula One and other big events look set to drive growth in the hospitality industry

With big events drawing a growing share of of tourism dollars, F1 offers a potential glimpse of the travel industry’s future.

Published

on

By

Sergio Perez of Oracle Red Bull Racing, right, and Charles Leclerc of the Scuderia Ferrari team compete in the Las Vegas Grand Prix on Nov. 19, 2023. Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu via Getty Images

In late 2023, I embarked on my first Formula One race experience, attending the first-ever Las Vegas Grand Prix. I had never been to an F1 race; my interest was sparked during the pandemic, largely through the Netflix series “Formula 1: Drive to Survive.”

But I wasn’t just attending as a fan. As the inaugural chair of the University of Florida’s department of tourism, hospitality and event management, I saw this as an opportunity. Big events and festivals represent a growing share of the tourism market – as an educator, I want to prepare future leaders to manage them.

And what better place to learn how to do that than in the stands of the Las Vegas Grand Prix?

A smiling professor is illuminated by bright lights in a nighttime photo taken at a Formula 1 event in Nevada.
The author at the Las Vegas Grand Prix. Katherine Fu

The future of tourism is in events and experiences

Tourism is fun, but it’s also big business: In the U.S. alone, it’s a US$2.6 trillion industry employing 15 million people. And with travelers increasingly planning their trips around events rather than places, both industry leaders and academics are paying attention.

Event tourism is also key to many cities’ economic development strategies – think Chicago and its annual Lollapalooza music festival, which has been hosted in Grant Park since 2005. In 2023, Lollapalooza generated an estimated $422 million for the local economy and drew record-breaking crowds to the city’s hotels.

That’s why when Formula One announced it would be making a 10-year commitment to host races in Las Vegas, the region’s tourism agency was eager to spread the news. The 2023 grand prix eventually generated $100 million in tax revenue, the head of that agency later announced.

Why Formula One?

Formula One offers a prime example of the economic importance of event tourism. In 2022, Formula One generated about $2.6 billion in total revenues, according to the latest full-year data from its parent company. That’s up 20% from 2021 and 27% from 2019, the last pre-COVID year. A record 5.7 million fans attended Formula One races in 2022, up 36% from 2019.

This surge in interest can be attributed to expanded broadcasting rights, sponsorship deals and a growing global fan base. And, of course, the in-person events make a lot of money – the cheapest tickets to the Las Vegas Grand Prix were $500.

Two brightly colored race cars are seen speeding down a track in a blur.
Turn 1 at the first Las Vegas Grand Prix. Rachel Fu, CC BY

That’s why I think of Formula One as more than just a pastime: It’s emblematic of a major shift in the tourism industry that offers substantial job opportunities. And it takes more than drivers and pit crews to make Formula One run – it takes a diverse range of professionals in fields such as event management, marketing, engineering and beyond.

This rapid industry growth indicates an opportune moment for universities to adapt their hospitality and business curricula and prepare students for careers in this profitable field.

How hospitality and business programs should prepare students

To align with the evolving landscape of mega-events like Formula One races, hospitality schools should, I believe, integrate specialized training in event management, luxury hospitality and international business. Courses focusing on large-scale event planning, VIP client management and cross-cultural communication are essential.

Another area for curriculum enhancement is sustainability and innovation in hospitality. Formula One, like many other companies, has increased its emphasis on environmental responsibility in recent years. While some critics have been skeptical of this push, I think it makes sense. After all, the event tourism industry both contributes to climate change and is threatened by it. So, programs may consider incorporating courses in sustainable event management, eco-friendly hospitality practices and innovations in sustainable event and tourism.

Additionally, business programs may consider emphasizing strategic marketing, brand management and digital media strategies for F1 and for the larger event-tourism space. As both continue to evolve, understanding how to leverage digital platforms, engage global audiences and create compelling brand narratives becomes increasingly important.

Beyond hospitality and business, other disciplines such as material sciences, engineering and data analytics can also integrate F1 into their curricula. Given the younger generation’s growing interest in motor sports, embedding F1 case studies and projects in these programs can enhance student engagement and provide practical applications of theoretical concepts.

Racing into the future: Formula One today and tomorrow

F1 has boosted its outreach to younger audiences in recent years and has also acted to strengthen its presence in the U.S., a market with major potential for the sport. The 2023 Las Vegas race was a strategic move in this direction. These decisions, along with the continued growth of the sport’s fan base and sponsorship deals, underscore F1’s economic significance and future potential.

Looking ahead in 2024, Formula One seems ripe for further expansion. New races, continued advancements in broadcasting technology and evolving sponsorship models are expected to drive revenue growth. And Season 6 of “Drive to Survive” will be released on Feb. 23, 2024. We already know that was effective marketing – after all, it inspired me to check out the Las Vegas Grand Prix.

I’m more sure than ever that big events like this will play a major role in the future of tourism – a message I’ll be imparting to my students. And in my free time, I’m planning to enhance my quality of life in 2024 by synchronizing my vacations with the F1 calendar. After all, nothing says “relaxing getaway” quite like the roar of engines and excitement of the racetrack.

Rachel J.C. Fu does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

Dropping Like a Stone: ON RRP Take‑up in the Second Half of 2023

Take-up at the Overnight Reverse Repo Facility (ON RRP) has halved over the past six months, declining by more than $1 trillion since June 2023. This steady…

Published

on

Take-up at the Overnight Reverse Repo Facility (ON RRP) has halved over the past six months, declining by more than $1 trillion since June 2023. This steady decrease follows a rapid increase from close to zero in early 2021 to $2.2 trillion in December 2022, and a period of relatively stable balances during the first half of 2023. In this post, we interpret the recent drop in ON RRP take-up through the lens of the channels that we identify in our recent Staff Report as driving its initial increase.

ON RRP Take-up Has Been Decreasing since June 2023…

A blue single-line chart depicts ON RRP take-pp from 2020  through the end of 2023 in trillions of U.S. dollars. The chart shows a steady increase from close to zero in early 2021 to $2.2 trillion in December 2022. Ater a period of relatively stable balances in the first half of 2023, the chart shows a recent drop in ON RRP take-up.
Source: Federal Reserve of St. Louis. FRED database.

Banks’ Balance-Sheet Costs

As the Federal Reserve expanded its balance sheet in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, it increased the supply of reserves to the banking system and, as a result, banks’ balance sheets also grew. Reserves increased from $1.6 trillion—or 9 percent of banks assets—in January 2020 to $3.2 trillion—or 16 percent of bank assets—over the following three months, reaching a historical maximum of 19 percent of banks’ assets in September 2021. As the chart below shows, bank assets also grew from $18 trillion in January of 2020 to $20 trillion in April 2020, and continued to increase to $23 trillion in May 2023.

As banks’ balance sheets expand, regulatory ratios—such as the supplementary leverage ratio (SLR)—are likely to become tighter for some institutions. Banks react to increased balance-sheet costs by pushing some of their deposits toward the money market fund (MMF) industry—for instance, by lowering the rate paid on bank deposits—and reducing their demand for short-term debt. As we explain in our paper, both effects are likely to have boosted ON RRP take-up during March 2021 – May 2023, as most MMFs are eligible to invest in the ON RRP and do so especially when alternative investment options, such as banks’ wholesale short-term debt—including repos by dealers affiliated with a bank holding company—dwindle.

Likely, these effects have subsided relative to 2022. Indeed, since June 2023, bank assets have hovered around $23 trillion, slightly below their March 2023 peak. Moreover, reserves have been around 14 percent of bank assets since June 2023, below the average of 16 percent observed between March 2020 and May 2023. Since the SLR treats all assets in the same way regardless of their riskiness, large banks’ balance-sheet expansions are particularly costly if they are used to finance safe assets with low returns. Therefore, though bank assets have remained relatively stable, the recent decline in the ratio of reserves to bank assets has likely reduced banks’ overall balance-sheet costs.

…while Bank Assets and Reserves Relative to Bank Assets Have Remained Roughly Constant.

 A two-line chart depicts bank assets in red and the ratio of bank reserves to assets in blue from 2020 to late 2023. Since June 2023, bank assets have hovered around $23 trillion, slightly below their March 2023 peak. Moreover, reserves have been around 14 percent of bank assets since June 2023.
Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. FRED database.

Consistent with a decrease in banks’ balance-sheet costs (and an increase in the supply of bank debt), the interest rates at which banks and broker dealers borrow via overnight Treasury-backed repos have increased since the fourth quarter of 2022 and are now a few basis points above the ON RRP rate (see chart below). This positive rate differential pushes MMFs away from investing at the ON RRP facility and into private repos.

The SOFR-ON RRP Spread Has Been Positive…

A blue single-line chart depicts the spread between the secured overnight financing rate and the ON RRP rate in basis points from 2020 through the end of 2024. The rate differential has been positive since early 2023.
Source: Federal Reserve of St. Louis, FRED database.

Monetary Policy

Monetary policy can affect ON RRP take-up by MMFs in two ways. First, the interest-rate pass-through of MMF shares is higher than that of bank deposits; as a result, the size of the MMF industry comoves with the monetary policy cycle as investors switch from bank deposits to MMF shares when the policy rate increases. Though the assets of the MMF industry are at an all-time high, the pace of the increase has somewhat decreased recently, consistent with a slower pace of monetary policy tightening; moreover, the share of MMF assets managed by government funds—the ones most likely to invest in the ON RRP—has decreased since June 2022 by 7 percentage points.

Second, monetary policy can affect MMFs’ take-up at the ON RRP also through its effect on interest-rate uncertainty. Higher uncertainty leads MMFs to rebalance their portfolios toward investments with shorter duration; the ON RRP is one such investment as it is overnight. Indeed, interest rate uncertainty—as measured by the MOVE index—had increased substantially during the latest tightening cycle, raising from 57.3 in May 2021 to 136 in May 2023. Recently, however, the increase has been partially reversed. Indeed, the average level of the MOVE was 125.6 in the first half of 2023 but declined to 117.3 in the second half of the year.

…while Interest-Rate Uncertainty Has Been Decreasing.

A blue single line chart shows that interest rate uncertainty—as measured by the MOVE index—had increased substantially during the latest tightening cycle, raising from 57.3 in May 2021 to 136 in May 2023.
Source: Yahoo! Finance.

The Supply of T-bills

A third driver of ON RRP take-up is the supply of T-bills. The Federal Government has expanded the supply of T-bills dramatically in 2023: T-bills outstanding increased from $3.7 trillion at the end of 2022 to $5.3 trillion at the end of September 2023, with a $1.3 trillion increase since June. As the supply of T-bills grows, the investment options of MMFs—and especially of government funds, which represent 83 percent of the industry and can only invest in short-term government debt and repos backed by government debt—expand and, as a result, their investment in the ON RRP dwindles. In our staff report, we estimate that a $100 billion increase in the amount of T-bill issuance reduces the proportion of ON RRP investment in a government-MMF portfolio by 2.3 percentage points, relative to that in a prime-MMF portfolio; since average monthly T-bill issuance went from $1.12 trillion in the period from 2022:Q1-2023:Q1 to $1.53 trillion in 2023:Q2-2023:Q3, this effect on portfolio rebalancing amounts to an additional decrease in ON RRP investment of roughly $350 billion.

Summing It Up

The increase in ON RRP take-up between 2021 and May 2023 was driven by a series of factors: a rise in banks’ balance-sheet costs due to the expansion of the supply of reserves in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the rapid hikes in policy rates aimed at fighting inflation and the resulting increase in interest-rate uncertainty, and the decrease in the T-bill supply of 2021-22 resulting from the normalization of public debt after the COVID-19  crisis.

These factors have reversed: the Federal Reserve restarted running off its balance sheet after the temporary expansion during the banking turmoil of March 2023; the growth of the banking system waned while the ratio of reserves to asset decreased; the pace of interest-rate hikes slowed down; and the T-bill supply increased again. If these dynamics persist in the months ahead, ON RRP take-up may continue to decrease. Such a steady decline would be consistent with that observed in early 2018, when investment at the ON RRP gradually disappeared as the Federal Reserve continued to normalize the size of its balance sheet and reserves in the banking system became less abundant.

Gara Afonso is the head of Banking Studies in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Research and Statistics Group.

Marco Cipriani is the head of Money and Payments Studies in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Research and Statistics Group.  

Gabriele La Spada is a financial research economist in Money and Payments Studies in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Research and Statistics Group.   

How to cite this post:
Gara Afonso, Marco Cipriani, and Gabriele La Spada, “Dropping Like a Stone: ON RRP Take‑up in the Second Half of 2023,” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Liberty Street Economics, December 19, 2023, https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2023/12/dropping-like-a-stone-on-rrp-take-up-in-the-second-half-of-2023/.

Disclaimer
The views expressed in this post are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York or the Federal Reserve System. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the author(s).

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending