Rather than dipping too deeply into the tax break tool box to attract new business, state and local governments might do just as well to make their local skies more friendly. Some research I’ve recently completed suggests that the easier it is for venture capitalists to travel by air, the better the companies in which they invest do.
When my colleagues (Shai Bernstein at Stanford University and Richard Townsend at Dartmouth College) and I analyzed what happened when new airline routes were introduced that reduced the travel time between venture capitalists and companies in which they had invested, we found a robust result: the travel time reduction leads to an increase in innovation as well as a greater likelihood of an IPO. Moreover, the greater the reduction in travel time, the stronger the positive effect on portfolio companies.
Our results indicate that VC involvement is an important determinant of innovation and success. Far from just sitting back to see if their investments pay off, venture capitalists tend to be active investors. They want to be up close and personal with their companies. Better flight connections that enable them to do so lead to greater company success, we found.
Have you ever been shopping and found a great jacket with a perfect fit? Then you look at the price tag and pause. Should you buy that perfect item now or wait to see if it’s still available during the inevitable end-of-season sale? What if the store told you that it only had a limited number left, or only had two on the rack in your size?
In a recent study I conducted with Prof. Karen Zheng, we found that as consumers have become more strategic about purchases, behavioral motives like regret and availability misperception are significant factors and should play a key role in pricing strategy.
Regret happens when consumers compare the outcome of a chosen action with that of the unchosen one and realize they would have been better off with the latter. In other words, they may regret buying the jacket now at the higher price if it turns out to be available during the sale for 30% off. Similarly, they may regret not buying it now if their size is gone by the time of the sale.
Apple issued $12 billion of U.S. debt in April, which gave the company a domestic cash infusion that allowed it to keep more earnings overseas. Last month PfizerPFE attempted to acquire AstraZeneca, a transaction that would have made Pfizer a subsidiary of the U.K.-based company. These were useful examples in the taxation classes I teach at MIT’s business school, but the real-world implications of these decisions are troubling. Even worse, legislators have responded with proposals that seek to prevent companies from escaping the U.S. tax system.
The U.S. corporate statutory tax rate is one of the highest in the world at 35%. In addition, the U.S. has a world-wide tax system under which profits earned abroad face U.S. taxation when brought back to America. The other G-7 countries, however, all have some form of a territorial tax system that imposes little or no tax on repatriated earnings.
To compete with foreign-based companies that have lower tax burdens, U.S. corporations have developed do-it-yourself territorial tax strategies. They accumulate foreign earnings rather than repatriate the earnings and pay the U.S. taxes. This lowers a company’s tax burden, but it imposes other costs.
For example, U.S. corporations hold more than $2 trillion in unremitted foreign earnings, a substantial portion of which is in cash. This is cash that currently can’t be reinvested in the U.S. or given to shareholders. As a consequence, companies are borrowing more in the U.S. to fund domestic operations and pay dividends. Another potential effect is that companies invest the earnings in foreign locations.
U.S. inflation has been accelerating in recent months, presenting the Federal Reserve with a tricky question as it decides how quickly to remove stimulus from the U.S. economy: Is the rise in prices a precursor of things to come or simply a “catching up” phase as people begin to spend again after a brutal winter?
Recent data from the U.S. Labor Department have led some to suggest that the long run of very low U.S. inflation could be ending. From Dec. 31 through May 31, the consumer price index — not seasonally adjusted — rose a cumulative 2.1 percent. That’s equivalent to an annualized inflation rate of more than 5 percent, far exceeding the Fed’s target of about 2 percent.
If this is more than a temporary phenomenon, the Fed might have to respond by raising interest rates sooner than expected — a move that would restrain economic growth and could trigger sharp declines in stock and bond markets.
Some officials at the Fed, though, reportedly do not believe that the surge in consumer prices represents the beginning of a new inflationary trend. After all, in the period just before the winter, from Sept. 30 to Dec. 31, prices actually fell by a cumulative 0.5 percent. Combine the two periods, one with an increase and one with a small drop, and you get an annualized inflation rate since September of about 2.4 percent.
Director of MIT Sloan’s Office of International Programs Stuart Krusell
What do the economies of Latin America and China have in common? They are both extremely interdependent on the other for growth.
China purchases a significant percentage of raw materials from Latin America, which are used in the manufacturing of goods. Many of those goods are then sold back to Latin America. This cycle has increased over the last decade, as China’s trade with the region has surged more than 20-fold since 2000. So while they are competitors, they also are trade partners. It’s a slice of globalization that is representative of the larger world.
China and Latin America’s relationship becomes even more intriguing when you consider the geo-political environments of both regions. What is the impact of Brazil’s elections on its trade partnership? Populist rhetoric to keep jobs local and not to be so dependent on China is appealing to many, but what happens to the region’s economy if trade with China decreases? Further, how do the corruption investigations in China impact trade? If China’s GDP is affected, it could mean the country is buying fewer natural resources from Latin America.