The end of the season is near for us Oregon bike racers. California still has a lot of action going through September(why don't we here in Oregon? The banana belts should be in September instead of march, breast way better weather!) but here its cross time. I guess that's no surprise, I think it would be a tough case to argue against that Oregon has the best cross scene in the nation, with cross stuff going on every week, all over the place, and the huge numbers that turn out to races such as the Cross Crusade. All that and some of the top cross racers in the nation hang out here.
But I still have a bit of California racer blood in my legs, and have a hard time saying goodbye to road races in august. Ill have to catch some of the early season cross races before saying so long to the start line this season.
Ill also spend some more time exploring new roads on the cross bike, and climbing incredibly steep hills only to bonk half way up, and eating blackberries on the side of the path to get the sugar needed to make it back. Yep, sounds like some good times.
Previous PostThe cross bike has risen!Next Post2010 Race Season is here!


text:
Home » Car Reviews » Your Tesla Will Now Tell You If Your Tires Are Worn
Your Tesla Will Now Tell You If Your Tires Are Worn
A new over-the-air update by Tesla brings a nifty little upgrade to the software, which can now display the status of the car's tires. Of course, the tech wasn't publicly announced by the automaker but observant customers noticed it quickly and shared the knowledge with the rest of the world.
As Drive Tesla Canada reports, the new feature shows if your tires are worn and the tread depth is too low. More interestingly, however, the system also detects if the tires are wearing unevenly. A screenshot obtained by the publication shows a warning message informing the driver that the rear tire tread is too low. The software advises the driver to "schedule for tire inspection and rotation."
But how does it work? We don't know for sure but Drive Tesla Canada reports there's a smart and easy way to determine when a tire's tread depth is low. When a tire loses tread, it basically becomes smaller and as a result, it starts rotating faster compared to when it was new. Tesla is likely measuring how many times the wheel is rotating and compares the value to a preset value.
As you could imagine, if a tire is rotating faster than the preset value, this means it has gotten smaller and has lost tread. On the same principle, if one tire rotates faster than the others, this likely means it is wearing unevenly. Our source says this feature comes available as part of the 2021.44.5 software update.
For now, we don't know if this new feature will be available for all Tesla models. Usually, the EV automaker doesn't follow a strict launch schedule of its updates, which means this new update could arrive at a random time during the next few weeks. More significant upgrades could be planned for the Model 3 and Model Y next year, and you can find more info about that here.
Source: Drive Tesla Canada
Lexus Electric Hypercar Officially Teased With LFA Secret Sauce
Ford's CEO Jim Farley Is MotorTrend's 2022 Person Of The Year

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Science programs at UIS have received a $60,000 Merck/AAAS Undergraduate Science Research Program grant to support summer student research projects. The grant will be paid out over three years and used to support four undergraduate students -- two biology majors and two chemistry majors -- in mentored, original research projects each summer. UIS is one of only 15 universities nationwide to receive these competitive grants.


text:
Manchester Airport offers advice ahead of busiest weekend ever
Manchester Airport is gearing itself up for one of its busiest weekends ever.
The UK's third-largest airport is expecting Friday 23 August to be the busiest day in its 81-year-old history with more than 115,000 passengers expected to arrive and depart from the Northern hub.
With around 430,000 passengers expected to travel during the busy bank holiday weekend, the airport the airport is advising customers on how to make their journey through Manchester as smooth as possible.
Leave plenty of time to arrive at the airport. Passengers are advised to check-in at least three hours in advance of long-haul flights and two hours for short-haul.
Highways England has the most up to date advice on the road network, whereas National Rail can advise on the latest with trains.
If driving, ensure you pre-book your parking as the airport's car parks are very busy this summer.
Passengers can be prepared by:
Having all their liquids, gels and pastes (no bigger than 100ml each) in a clear plastic bag
Coats and belts should be removed and large electricals out of their hand luggage ready for the security tray
If a tray requires further inspection, one of the security team will then search it. During the summer months on average around 12,000 bags a day get rejected and sent for additional searches. This is often because passengers have failed to comply and left liquids in their bags. On average it can add another five-ten minutes onto people's journey time through security. Multiply this by 12,000 and the minutes and hours soon add up.
Passengers with reduced mobility and hidden disabilities
Any passengers with reduced mobility needing assistance are advised to book this in advance with their airline to avoid any delays to their journey through the airport. This can be for all levels of reduced mobility and for passengers with a range of issues. All the information and contacts can be found here:
https://www.manchesterairport.co.uk/help/special-assistance/
Manchester Airport also offers help for passengers with hidden disabilities to ensure they have a smooth transition through the airport. Passengers can pick up a sunflower lanyard from the assistance desk in each terminal. Once worn staff are specially trained to give the right care and service to these passengers. The airport is also trialling a new quiet space in Terminal One for passengers with hidden disabilities to relax away from the busy departure lounge ahead of their flights. If people require access to the Sunflower Room, they can speak to the assistance desk who will provide the location.
After a variety of issues outside of its control with third party suppliers on site last summer, the airport has worked closely with all partners on site to make improvements this year.
ABM Aviation took over the contract for passengers with reduced mobility on 1 April and has been working closely with terminal teams in recent months to ensure a smooth and efficient handover from the previous supplier. The change in contract has seen an additional 68 special assistance staff join the team at the airport.
Work has also been progressing at a great rate on the airport's £1bn transformation that will see Terminal Two grow by 150%. A new passenger pier and multi storey car park opened to passengers on 1 April. The pier is longer than the Beetham Tower is tall, has 11 gates and offers passengers modern, light and airy surroundings whilst they wait for their flight. With stunning views across the airfield, the pier is the first of three for the project. Work also continues at great pace on the terminal extension with that set to open next summer.
Passengers can now also use the free WiFi in the terminals for longer as the airport continues to make improvements to the passenger experience.
Brad Miller, Chief Operating Officer at Manchester Airport, said: "We're now in the middle of the summer holidays and handling more than 100,000 passengers a day. As we gear up for our busiest weekend ever on the Bank Holiday, we're asking passengers to ensure they're fully prepared when they arrive at the airport to ensure their journey through is as smooth as possible.
"In addition to passengers being prepared we have also prepped for the busy summer by investing heavily across the site, mainly through additional resource and the first phase of our £1bn transformation programme opening at Terminal 2 with a new passenger pier and multi storey car park.
"We hope everyone passing through Manchester Airport has a fantastic trip."
Tags: Manchester Airport, News


Any RSS seeking to apply for AMA PRA Category 1 Credit (TM) must appoint a RSS Activity Director and a RSS Administrative Liaison who are required to complete an annual application. If this is your first time applying for CME credit for a Regularly Scheduled Series, please email Wendy Murphy prior to starting the application. The application form, along with the requested documentation, must be submitted to Wendy Murphy by early November for approval effective January 1st of the following year.
All RSS must be designed to make a change in clinical competence (strategy), performance, or patient outcomes. They must also be designed to measure for a change in clinical competence (strategy), performance, or patient outcomes.
All identified speakers to date for Traditional (has a different speaker at each session) programs or all regular attendees (core group) at case discussion type programs.
Proposed annual activity schedule (including speaker name and talk title or list of potential topics to be covered during the year).
If this process is not completed in the timeframe specified accreditation will be withheld until application is approved.


I have a confession. When I think of "QuickBooks desktop" I always think of the Windows versions of the product. I've never been a "Mac person," I'm totally immersed in the world of Microsoft Windows. However, Intuit has the QuickBooks for Mac product, and there are many loyal users.
Looking at QuickBooks for Mac, I think it is very telling that there was no QuickBooks for Mac 2017 product. The current version is QuickBooks for Mac 2016.
It also is important to note that there is no external programming interface for the Mac product, so there cannot be any third-party products developed for QuickBooks for Mac.
So what do I see in the future for QuickBooks for Mac?
I predict that there will continue to be maintenance releases to the current product, fixing problems and possibly handling operating system changes, but only for a few more years.
I suspect that we will see some additional Intuit-produced "attachments" to work with QuickBooks for Mac, such as QuickBooks Financing.
I believe that QuickBooks for Mac 2016 is the last major release. I don't expect another version to be produced. Given Intuit's normal "sunset" policies, that would indicate that QuickBooks for Mac will be discontinued in 2019.
Please note that this is speculation on my part. I don't have any "inside information" about this product. Intuit really didn't want to talk to me about this product when I was interviewing people for this article series. I could be wrong, we'll have to wait and see.
Update 3/1/2017: Just as I predicted, today Intuit told ProAdvisors that there will be no new version of QuickBooks for Mac on the desktop. The 2016 version is the last, and support will expire on May 31 2019.
The type of business user that Intuit targets with QuickBooks for Mac is very similar to their target for the core version of QuickBooks Online – small, service-oriented businesses. There is a lot of overlap here. It doesn't make sense to me that they would have two products aimed at the same demographics.
I lump these two products together, although there are significant differences between them. QuickBooks Pro is much more like QuickBooks Online as far as features, and particularly as to the target business type. Usually when people make the case for why the desktop product is so much better than the online product, they are referring to features found in QuickBooks Premier.
What has been going on with QuickBooks Pro and Premier lately?
There definitely has been a slowdown in the number of new features that come out every year. I used to have to publish two weeks-worth of blog articles to cover all the new features that were released every Fall, now I'm down to just about two articles. If you look at QuickBooks 2017, there really was only one new feature of any significance, Scheduled Reports.
Intuit is focusing on improving reliability and security in these products. Lots of things have been improved "under the hood" that you might not see.
Intuit tells me that sales of Pro/Premier are relatively flat. Earlier I talked about the increase in revenue for desktop products. That increase isn't coming from Pro and Premier.
Intuit continues to support these products with an intelligent and well-grounded management and development team. I spend a lot of time talking to these people, and I believe that the products are in good hands.
So, where do I see these products going?
Security, compliance and performance will continue to be a focus for development. Intuit wants to ensure that they produce the most solid product that they can.
After that, Intuit will continue to work on ensuring that all capabilities in the product function properly. The advantage to releasing fewer new features every year is that they can provide a quick response to customer issues.
Intuit will continue to expand and enhance the integration with QuickBooks Payments. This is a significant source of revenue for them, plus it exposes desktop users to the benefits of working with an online feature.
I expect to see more "attachments," since that is the key to their success. Look for integration with QuickBooks Financing, for example.
I wonder, will they move completely to a subscription pricing model for Pro and Premier? Intuit says that they have no plans for this. However, they already have subscription pricing available in the QuickBooks Pro Plus and QuickBooks Premier Plus programs, for QuickBooks Accountant, and of course for QuickBooks Enterprise. Intuit really likes having products on a subscription basis rather than on a unit purchase basis. I will also note that starting very recently they only sell by subscription in the United Kingdom.
This is totally speculation on my part, with no clues from Intuit, but I wonder if they will eventually drop QuickBooks Pro while keeping QuickBooks Premier? Pro is much closer in features to QuickBooks Online, while Premier is the product for businesses with advanced needs. Maybe? Probably not soon, if at all. I don't have any figures on revenue that separates QuickBooks Pro from QuickBooks Premier.
Last September, when Intuit rolled out the 2017 desktop products, I was very surprised to see that there were no new features that were introduced in QuickBooks Enterprise. What did that mean? Was Enterprise being abandoned? Then I was surprised to hear that all of the Enterprise development engineers that I knew had either moved over to the QuickBooks Online team, or left the company. What was going on?
The revenue growth shown in my charts for QuickBooks Desktop came primarily from QuickBooks Enterprise.
Intuit tells me that QuickBooks Enterprise customers are more likely to purchase "attachments" than QuickBooks Pro and Premier users. Recall that revenue from "attachments" is very, very significant to Intuit.
While the engineering contacts that I had for QuickBooks Enterprise were no longer working on that product (and I'll admit, I don't think I knew them all), Intuit has brought in a new, enthusiastic development team for Enterprise. This is one of those good news, bad news situations, I guess. The bad news is that you have people who don't understand the "history" of the product, who don't know the market it addresses. On the other hand, this could be very good news because now you have people who are coming in with fresh new ideas on how the product can be expanded and developed. To be honest, after talking to some members of the new team, I think that this bodes well for QuickBooks Enterprise.
Although there weren't any significant new features in the 2017 release of Enterprise, there was a lot of under-the-cover work on improving security, reliability, compliance and performance for the product. It is still early to tell how well this has worked out, but it does make a lot of sense for the new team to clean up these kinds of issues before working on new features.
So, now I'm feeling better about the future for QuickBooks Enterprise.
There will be an increased focus on QuickBooks Enterprise compared to what we've had lately.
I wonder where Enterprise pricing will go? I think that the number of customers stayed fairly constant, so does that leave the door open for price increases? Despite all the complaints about the change to subscription pricing, Intuit didn't appear to lose a lot of customers here. I also wonder if we are going to see a return to bundled pricing where some new features might be available for a separate subscription price, like we used to see with Advanced Inventory? I have no information on this, I'm just speculating.
As with QuickBooks Pro and Premier, I expect to see more "attachment" integration, such as QuickBooks Financing.
We are going to see more new features coming out in the future. Intuit understands that there is a lot of interest in inventory-related features on the part of QuickBooks Enterprise customers. I hope to see more inventory features, better handling of order fulfillment, and I really hope that there will be improvements in in-product reporting.
This concludes my "state of the union" presentation on the QuickBooks product line. I hope that this generates a lot of discussion – please leave comments about what you think I got right, where I'm wrong, and what you would like to see Intuit do. Your comments can impact the products, as I believe Intuit keeps an eye on these articles.
And, keep in mind that a lot of my conclusions are speculation on my part. I did spend a lot of time interviewing various Intuit employees, and I've been covering the company in articles for many years now, but Intuit is very good about keeping details of their plans very private.
The QuickBooks Online ecosystem is clearly the focus of the future for Intuit. This includes QuickBooks Online, QuickBooks Online Accountant and QuickBooks Self-Employed.
Mobile computing is a major thrust along all online products. "Mobile First" is their battle cry.
Keep an eye on "Machine Learning." I truly believe that this is the concept that will be transformational for the company and the products. Machine learning is what will make online accounting software more than just a cloud-based program that does the same thing we have been doing all along on the desktop.
QuickBooks Online Accountant is going to be the accountant's home base, and become more of a practice management tool.
QuickBooks Self-Employed is a growing product that will be a significant part of Intuit's future. Intuit has a unique set of skills, knowledge and products that gives them the best chance for succeeding in this marketplace.
QuickBooks Desktop (for Windows) is not dead yet, but QuickBooks Enterprise is where all the fun new developments will show up.
Thanks Charlie, this series is awesome.
I definitely agree it's obvious that Intuit eyes QuickBooks Online as the future. But like many, we've found that our bigger and more complex clients really have difficulty migrating to QBO. Some are relieved to migrate back to one of the desktop products. We're seeing that the sweet spot for QBO is on the low end of business revenue and complexity. Bigger businesses are still best suited to go to Enterprise, which has a better feature set to meet their needs. And frankly Enterprise fills a big hole in the marketplace. QBO doesn't provide the larger and more complex companies what they need just yet.
I am eager to see how QBO evolves in the coming years, and if it will truly replace the desktop products…especially Enterprise. I expect it to be on par with Enterprise in the 5 year range. But I'm not sure it will ever truly replace it. I think there's a strong market for both products, even if the capabilities are similar.
Thanks, Kurt! Haven't heard from you in awhile.
I think it will be a very long time before QuickBooks Online is on a par with Enterprise. In fact, I wonder if it ever will, at least BY ITSELF. However, addon products are going to fill in a lot of those gaps. There are addon products that go a long way towards "Enterprise parity" when you talk about heavy inventory related businesses, for example. But I don't see things like heavy manufacturing ever using QBO by itself. Also, we are going to start to see features in QBO that don't exist in the desktop products. That is when it is going to be very hard to compare desktop to online.
But, yes, at this time, without addons, QBO is definitely aimed at the smaller business, service oriented.
What an Explanation, Really Charlie has made each and every point crystal clear for there readers, Also thanks for giving us hope, as we are into accounting business. Once Again Thank you Charlie.
What can you refer for a good add on for inventory management in in quick books online online?
There are all kinds of them, but each has different advantages, and you have to choose the one that fits your needs. https://apps.intuit.com/ lists quite a few, some of which I am familiar with, some that I am not. SOS Inventory has been around a long time. Cin7 fits some businesses and has a lot of followers. I really like DEAR Inventory for some kinds of situations. Unleashed, HandiFox, Agiliron, All Orders, BarCloud, SalesPad Cloud are all products that I have some familiarity with and are good options. But they are all different, and there are many kinds of businesses dealing with "inventory management".
Intuit will be eyeing the higher revenue/customer from a subscription model. They will happily toss half their old customers if they can keep the other half and get a lot more cash out of them – and that's the name of the game with a subscription model (ask Adobe).
So the high revenue from Desktop users might just be seen as something large to milk. Once they have you on subscription (for Desktop Software) and once they make more of the add-ons cloud based, you're stuck with them. Then they force migration to QBO. I would trust Intuit's statements about preserving Desktop about as much as I'd trust anything their marketing people say.
You make a really good point about Desktop Pro probably being the first Windows version to walk the plank.
As I said, I believe, they already have a subscription model as an option, so they have a way to test the market there.
I'm not sure what you mean by having more add-ons cloud based in relation to this, as that is a statement open to interpretation.
Keep in mind that although I've referenced Intuit's statements about the desktop being around, I'm not basing my claims on that. I'm looking at the revenue, and staffing, and other factors. I do believe that there will be an end to the desktop product, but I don't expect it to be in the very near future. Not when you count the entire product line, including Enterprise.
But, we'll see! And, Intuit does change course fairly often, so we have to revisit the issue every couple of years.
Hi Charlie, I have a comment about Quickbooks Online. I currently run QB Mac 2016 (the last year for QB Mac) and I ran a 30-day trial of QBO to test the product. There is a feature we need in QBO which is absent, which was a deal breaker for us: namely, that we need to organize customers by "type". We have clients that are under contract with us – and we also have clients that are on a pay-as-you-go program. QB Pro Windows, and QB Mac have this feature – the ability to assign a "type" to each customer profile. Can you offer this feedback to Intuit? We could use QBO if that feature existed.
I think they might be looking at that, but I'm not sure.
Hi Charlie, thank you for your reply. There is one more feature, that to my knowledge, none of the Quickbooks products have offered – namely, the ability to run a summary report titled: "Income by locality". City business license fees, are based on gross receipts accrued within a city. Companies report their 12-month sales on their license renewal form, which determines the license fee. There is no easy way currently to summarize sales by city. Can you get this message to Intuit? Thank you.
Very informative article. Love the insight on possible changes in future Enterprise development. Would love to see more integration abilities to desktop. Reporting, CRM, Marketing Automation, etc.
Thanks so much Charlie for the very comprehensive "state of the union" series. It was extremely well organized, thought out, and written. I appreciate your hard work. I commented on the various articles along the way.
Thanks, Jeff – tell your friends!
This has been an interesting series and great analysis. I can't see Intuit abandoning desktop in the near future either. It's just a better fit for some clients. Others work better with QBO.
I realize Intuit would like to see those users that need more features migrate to QBO plus add-ons. But the cost for some can easily be quadruple what the desktop option would cost them.
Both products (desktop & QBO) have different strengths. It's really nice having both.
Like with any product in the cloud. In accounting software terms they are relevantly new. The desktop products have been built by likes of Sage and QB and have aged 20-30 years. The new Online product will not be direct replacements for a time yet and take time to be as feature rich. However. It's a fact that most people using these desktop products are in most cases not using the product to its full potential nor do they need all of it. So QBO, Sage One and Xero penetrate that market well. As well as new business sales in the small and micro world. In time they will be as feature rich or provide ISVs that write into them. Its also still important to nurture the long standing customers for life as well as new businesses. Sage do this well as they provide a choice, desktop, hybrid, online. That scales from micro to Enterprise on all 3 styles providing all round choice. What's more important is the automation online software provides. Many people should be preparing for the effects of AI, and bots on the services they provide to customers and how to utilize that to reduce labor and time and increase effectiveness and productivity.
The sad things is that people who use QBO don't realize what they are missing when they have never used the desktop version. Ignorance is bliss as they say. However, for the cost of QBO and the features compared to the desktop version, QBO falls ridiculously short. Intuit does a hard sell for people to subscribe to QBO even when they know it is not as good a product. I understand, it's a business and they are there to make money. But misleading customers into purchasing or even upgrading to a product that they know will not fit their business is just reckless and irresponsible.
@Kendall, I've been using QuicBooks desktop since the DOS version, and know exactly what is under the hood in each product. There is a trade off when selecting products. QBO is definitely not the same product as QBD. If you need certain features found in QBD, then that's the product to use for that client. But, for more simple clients where your main requirements are multi-user remote access, and heavily rely on bank feeds, then QBO is the way to go, because it's Bank Feed is far superior than QBD. As a result, I can get those clients done much faster in QBO than QBD. It really depends on what the client needs.
I do tend to be a bit USA-centric, since that is the market I work in and where I have the most connections at Intuit. I did point out the move to subscription pricing in the UK, and I believe that if this works as they hope in the UK (that is, encourages people to move from desktop to online) then we'll see it here.
Pro/Premier sales in the UK have never been stellar. Enterprise sales also were quite low. So Intuit axed Enterprise and is trying to get everyone to the online product. This allows them to focus desktop sales to the US and Canada markets, where they are doing better.
Wow! Glad I'm not in the UK, however a similar thing will probably happen here in the US in ~5 years, except Enterprise might be the one that hangs on while Pro/Premier is discontinued. We see this pattern with Intuit when they are shifting direction. Reduce marketing/availability, then report reducing sales on that product, and finally, discontinuing the product based on poor sales performance. Gee I wonder why? If it's not a super well performing product, then Intuit can't be bothered, even if it serves a need in the market. I use and recommend QBO for what it is, but it's not a replacement (yet) for either desktop products for many clients, regardless of what Intuit's marketing machine would like users to believe.
Having worked with a lot of accountants in the UK and USA i have seen both sides. The UK accountant is very pro active with new technology not just accounting but using add on solutions like T-Sheets, Receipt bank to name a few. Subscription is even a consideration anymore, its just the way its done and not many think twice about it. This is a market standard, Direct debit (auto pay) is a requirement for most retail, technology, IT, Mobile, Telephony, utilities. I've noticed in the USA still a lot of traditional methods still being used with check writing. In my 35 years living in the UK ive never written a check neither have any of my friends and work colleagues. Subscription is just not a big deal. Also the HMRC have gone all digital and will be fully digital by 2020 so this was a huge influence. Not to spiral off point. The USA still has a lot of traditional thinking customers being led by traditional based accountants, probably worlds most complex tax system, and broadband still reaching to further regions this is an issue for cloud adoption. Desktop is still the stronger product but cloud has all the automation. As i eluded to above Sage have built a desktop hybrid with 50c, 100c so they have desktop with automated tools like T-Sheets and bank feeds. Also their cloud products talk to their desktop so you can use Sage One and Sage 50c together. Then they have their cloud portfolio Sage One (similar to QBO) and now Sage Live a mid-market customization cloud software built on the Saleforce platform. Nature will take its course the market will shift Sage seem to cover all basis along the road.
I hope they never get rid of Desktop! I am actually converting some of my clients back from QBO to Desktop (at least those that don't actually use QBO for their invoicing), as I find QBO so completely frustrating. I'm a keyboard user and if I go too fast, well………! Prefill Bank – OMG! When you have a client that uses a few different bank accounts, the prefill Bank is awful! Would like to see Batch Enter. So many glitches….., drilling down on a report (not all but some), when you close the drill down it closes down the whole report, or takes you back to the Report List so you have to do the Report again! (I use the App so yes, I know about opening up separate windows). Sales taxes, another frustrating one……, it's so restrictive! Sorry to be ranting but I am soooo frustrated. If I had all the time in the world, then I "guess" QBO would be okay. I think they have tried to make it so easy and streamlined that they have ended up with something completely useless, at least from an Accountant/Bookkeepers point of view. I am open to any tips etc. that will help lessen my frustration.
Best I can say is that be sure you are using QuickBooks Online Accountant, and don't think of QuickBooks Online as having any relation to QuickBooks desktop. Totally different products.
Fascinating and useful article and interesting comments following – many thanks.
I am supporting a number of long-standing clients on QB Desktop here in the UK, plus a few newer ones using QB Online. Despite what Intuit say, the Online offering is immature and will not support businesses with complex needs. I know this is true because I use both products on a daily basis and have built up good working knowledge on what is and isn't in there.
Unfortunately, in the UK Intuit have now moved even Desktop to a subscription-only pricing model, which has meant a tripling of costs for most of my clients. I used to source the software for them whenever there were advantageous offers at Amazon etc – now we are all locked into standard pricing from Intuit – with no place for Professional Advisors in the model since each business has to deal with Intuit direct.
Intuit's thinking is quite clearly to push their customers gently towards QB Online with pricing pressure – although for many users this is a step they cannot take even if they wanted to, due to the missing functionality. As an example, one of my clients had made a definite decision to switch to Online due mainly to the increased Desktop subscription costs, only to swiftly reconsider when I informed them that QB Online does not support Sales Orders, which they totally rely on in their business.
The main point to take from this, I think, is that QB Desktop is an exceptionally functional and mature product. It should be, since it has been around for thirty-odd years! There's no way a new product can recreate all this functionality in just a year or two, and Intuit should be more upfront about what is missing which could cause switchers extreme business difficulties.
The crunch point for QB Desktop (at least here in the UK) will come when they stop supporting Payroll. At that juncture, any business requiring payroll functionality will have a tough decision – use a separate payroll system and journal the entries in, or switch to another system (but almost certainly not QB Online because of the missing functionality). Either route will be painful.
And there's something else just a little sinister to consider in respect of the new pricing model.
By introducing compulsory Subscription Pricing, Intuit have quietly but fundamentally altered their relationship with their customers. From 2017, the customer no longer owns the software licence, but is merely entitled to use the product "As long as a valid monthly subscription is in place".
Therefore if at some point the business decides not to renew the subscription, or even at the time when the product is not officially supported any more, they cannot then continue to use it. Presumably calls to Intuit at that time to revalidate the licence will simply direct them towards the Online sign-up screen. This is a very significant move – because unlike for users of the pre-2017 versions you cannot henceforward continue to use the software indefinitely. This is a real game-changer, but no-one has really picked up on it.
Taking all this into consideration, I feel that QuickBooks Desktop is not dead, yet – but the writing is definitely on the wall.
The only real question is when. For myself, I have a five year maximum timeframe in mind – but it could be sooner. I sincerely hope not, because I have no doubt whatsoever that QBDesktop is the best small business accounting solution around, by a long chalk, and all of my clients using it will strongly object to being forced to switch to something else.
My article is very US-centric, I'll admit. The UK and Canadian divisions of Intuit are very separate from the US division, particularly when it comes to the desktop product.
It is fairly clear to me (although I don't provide information to support this in this article) that there is a different view of QuickBooks desktop in the UK, and to a lesser degree in Canada, than with the US version. My general feeling is that Intuit is very interested in retiring the UK desktop products, for a wide number of reasons. They've already killed Enterprise there, and you brought up the pricing changes as well. When I say the "desktop is not dead" I'm referring to the US marketplace.
Thanks Charlie – that's understood, and certainly they are different marketplaces for Intuit. I very much want to be wrong on this point but I believe Intuit see Desktop as yesterday's product but not tomorrow's, and that's globally, not just in the UK.
When you see them introduce compulsory subscription pricing for Desktop in the US you'll know what the end-game is.
For the time being, I'll count every year I get to continue using Desktop with my clients as a bonus. I try to stay positive about QB Online, but almost everything takes twice as long to do. Some of my clients like it, but none of these have ever used Desktop so they don't have a point of comparison. I haven't yet encountered a Desktop to Online switcher who thinks that the software itself is better, but they do appreciate the remote access capabilities.
Oh, I agree that it is on the way out. My point is that it isn't going quite yet, in the US. But Intuit makes it clear what they are focused on.
We have subscription pricing already, have for a few years. They are watching how that goes. And one of my predictions was that they would take Pro and Premier to subscription pricing in the US in the near term.
Well this very well Explained and evident since all service are moving on to cloud then why not accounting.Even now days Intuit has started offering complementary transformation from desktop to online. Even I believe Online QuickBooks will be new milestone for intuit because this application gives more freedom to the user.just login and Access from anywhere.
One thing that really concerns me… "backing up online data".
Please correct me if i'm wrong. We can export a CSV file from QBO. However, we cannot upload all of that data. We can only upload lists, not transactions. How do we restore all our data to a brand new user account if, for example, all the data in our existing account became corrupted?
And this to me is one of the biggest problems with mission-critical online systems.
You entrust your data to companies like Intuit and since with complex accounting systems like this, the data is critical to the business, you in effect, entrust your business to them.
In the (unlikely) event that they have a disaster with their systems, and their disaster recovery plan doesn't work, or works only slowly, then your business is compromised, along with millions of others.
In many cases, this could well be fatal for the business.
Companies like Intuit and Sage, and for that matter Miscrosoft and all the banks, who host online systems on a massive scale, tell us this cannot happen and your data is safe.
Everyday occurrences of system crashes across the world tell us that this is not so. Most systems stay up and running 99.99999% of the time (fill in as many nines as you want). Every now and then, one goes down, just like airliners and ships do.
For any online service provider to claim that their systems are 100% robust is clearly nonsense. No airline will ever tell you they will categorically never, ever, have a plane of theirs crash. And if they did you wouldn't believe them, because they are predicting a future they cannot control.
What they do instead, is tell you the risks are so small that you can safely ignore them.
So in the final analysis – your choice, your data, your business. For myself, I choose to keep all of my mission-critical data on me own systems, and back it up on a real-time basis in several different ways. At some point in the future I WILL have a system crash or failure – it's a given, and it's happened before. I know that I can be up and running again in a couple of hours and I know that I can control this process – because my recovery plan is robust, and it's been tested.
If Intuit's systems go down (or for that matter my own broadband) all I can do is wait for someone else to put it right, and for me that's not good enough. A couple of years ago my broadband went down and stayed down for three weeks. If I'd been relying on online services for mission critical data I'd have gone bust.
As I've said in previous posts, online systems are here to stay, and luddites like me won't change that. But until I'm forced into it, I'll stay where I am, thanks.
Don't confuse two separate issues – availability and security. Uptimes like you refer to are availability issues – an online system can crash or have a problem of some sort, and you might not be able to use your system or get to your data for a period of time, but eventually you get back to your data. That is the "uptime" issue, terms of service. A separate issue is permanent loss of data, corruption of some sort. Those kinds of issues are generally extremely rare for those very large providers, who hopefully have a disaster recover plan that is adequate. To be honest, even though I'm firmly a desktop person, I'm confident in Intuit in that regard. Service time issues occur, but irrecoverable loss of data hasn't been an issue. In fact, I've seen more "loss of data" issues with desktop-only users than I have with major vendor online vendors.
However, that doesn't mean that something can't happen, and I really wish for some way to make my own security backups. Lots of reasons for that, in online systems.
Online backups is a major topic, so it is hard to go through all the details here.
First of all, define "corrupted". Actual scrambled data, or just someone going in and making wholesale deletions and purposeful damage? Supposedly actual "corruption" won't happen in an online system. And if it does, then the online vendor has their own backups for security. It generally is safer than your desktop data.
As you say, exporting to CSV doesn't get everything, and restoring is complicated. Lots of different kinds of "backups" for different purposes. Exporting to another account isn't all that common. Exporting to a different accounting system is always hard, even on the desktop. Security backups, restore points, things of that sort, are the things that I'm most concerned about. Those are impossible in MOST online accounting systems (but not all), and that is always an issue for me.
The back up question has been a common question in my years of dealing with the cloud. It's all related to the security worries from users. Especially the generation x/baby boomer.
Take a look around you. Friends, family and staff. Think about all the devices, apps, services, cars, and social media they use. All of these are cloud storage. Unfortunately now you cannot escape it somewhere in your life. Do they worry about any of these disappearing. Yes but it's at the back of the mind because it's become a natural part of their lives. Reverse the situation. If we had been usual cloud since the 90s (bare in mind it's been around since the 70s off site storage isn't new it's mobile that made it huge) would we worry about it today? Nobody can say it's 100% safe and nobody will but trust is earned through the strength of a companies reputation and who they use to protect data. Intuit, Sage, and Xero all use Amazon Web servers. Why? They have the best servers with the greatest protection, and have all the legal data protection certificates in place.
Cloud is a 70 billion $ business in 2017 and will be 200 billion by 2020. I say to anyone what I say to anyone on this post. Do you want to lead or be led by your customers new and old. Future isn't the future anymore it's now. Why don't you ask your customers? Run a census with them, in those questions find out how much cloud they use without even realizing. They may be more receptive to cloud accounting then you think. Also you might find out a few more profit avenues along the way. Accounting isn't just about Accounting anymore. Its about future proofing your customers business in turn will protect your income too. Become a linchpin not redundant to customers a technology. Embrace.
Completely agree we are heading inexorably towards a cloud-based future, and much of it is wonderful. As a baby-boomer (yes I admit it), I don't have any problem with the concept of cloud-based technology as long as it's reliable. If my TV, broadband or mobile are offline for a few hours then it's an inconvenience. If my mission-critical business system is unavailable, then that costs money.
QuickBooks Online was totally unavailable on three separate occasions in 2016 with one outage for more than 4 hours (Oct 21). In the grand scheme of things it's not a bad track record.
However in just one of my client businesses this would have cost fifty times the price of their monthly subscription in lost labour time, and at least the same again in lost customer orders – if they had been using QB Online instead of Desktop.
Service outages are a major problem, and businesses need to have plans in place on how to deal with them to minimize losses. I have to say, most businesses that I deal with that are using some online service (and most do these days, even if their accounting is on the desktop), don't have an adequate plan in place. One of the first things I do with a new business client is talk about this kind of planning.
I can unequivocally say that Quickbooks Desktop is not going anywhere. Our company Ledgersync speaks to many CPA firms on a daily basis and many firms are strong advocates of QB Desktop. Although Quickbooks Online is catching up, Quickbooks Desktop will continue to lead for a long time!
Thanks you Charlie for "state of union", it is anormous well organized and nice thought written. I like you work.
I am a professional bookkeeper (15 years) with my own bookkeeping business. I have stopped accepting clients who use QBO. It's clunky and cumbersome and the slowness of saving every transaction through the internet reflects on my work poorly. It's fine for people who do their own books and love mobile computing and access, but not for this professional who finds very low job satisfaction working in QBO. If Intuit phases out the desktop version, I'm looking for a new career. Seriously!
QBO has a decidedly different workflow process as compared to QBD – I think this discourages an established (think older owners) small business from making the switch. QBO also, as you describe, still has less functionality compared to QBD (not considering the QBD Enterprise version in this statement).
I've read that current versions of QBD, for some internal functions, rely on or "hand-off" to other software on a users' computer (such as Windows or Office). This means that while the user is installing QBD, one must also be mindful of the many peripheral software requirements. I get that, but explaining it to non-technical business users (who use older software versions "with out problems") is difficult – sometimes nearly impossible to convince them to spend the $$ on an upgrade. So I'd encourage Intuit to focus some of its development time, energy and dollars on pulling those functions back into their code base.
I've been saying for years – it is unfortunate that QuickBooks Online has the "QuickBooks" name in it, because it is misleading. It has no real relation to QuickBooks desktop, so people are disappointed. They think it is the online version of the desktop software they know. And it definitely isn't. Most people that start on the desktop are disappointed in the online version.
There is no way that Intuit is going to update the desktop product to not rely on things like Internet Explorer, Excel, Word and such. It is very ingrained in the product, and extricating them would be a lot of work for no financial benefit to Intuit. And as I've said in several articles, the main focus of Intuit development is on QuickBooks Online.
From where the world is going, I think it's obvious that they're focusing more on the cloud. In fact, I have clients who even if they're using the Desktop version, are using it on some remote server so as to get the benefits of the cloud.
However, I've used Xero, FreshBooks and QBO. The downside of QBO is that it's slow as compared to Xero. Functions seem to stop working once you open multiple tabs.
I'm not sure if this happens only with me.
What's really great about putting QuickBooks desktop in a cloud environment (versus switching over to QBO) is the performance and control you have over that environment. Essentially you get the same flexibility of QBO with the robustness of Quickbooks desktop (rather than exchange that functionality for a "lite" version of the same thing). Seems like a no-brainer to me.
The revenue graphic you showed on the first page definitely says it all though. Even if the future is heavily reliant on the cloud, QB desktop and its ancillary products are still a mature and consistent revenue source for Intuit at the end of the day.
Thank you, but unfortunately having hosted QB isn't always the best thing. It all depends on your needs, and the hosting vendor. I acknowledge that I have not used your particular service, so I can't comment on what you do or don't provide. With some OTHER QB hosting vendors I've run into problems. Not all. Some cases, on a shared system, if one user crashes the QB data manager (which, with QB, happens too frequently), all others on the same server crash. In other cases, you are severely limited as to what add-on products you can use. In my own case (as an add-on developer), one QB hosting vendor clobbered all of my customers because they installed a beta test version of my product for one user, which automatically upgraded all of the users on that system to the same version (which was NOT good). There are limitations in some cases, with shared hosted systems. And you can go to a dedicated virtual system, but usually that is very expensive. Of course, "expensive" is relative, you have to work in the savings you get by not having to buy and maintain your own system.
Perfectly agree with the points given.In terms of features QB online is no where near QB desktop .Also i feel QB online is very bulky and loads slowly on slow connections .Not to mention the whole page refresh.
I am a healthcare provider and can't use QBO because it is not HIPAA compliant. All of the workarounds that have been suggested so far seem too cumbersome.
I'm just seeing this article and you've done a great job on the series. About 90% of my clients are on the cloud, using hosted versions of QBDT. This gives us the more robust features of the desktop and allows cloud access.
I am guessing that Intuit doesn't want to put this out there because it would interfere with their QBO sales and be harder to explain to customers.
Intuit offers a private-labeled version of Right Networks, and also licenses hosting companies so that they can regulate quality of the "official" supported hosting companies, so they aren't totally ignoring it. But they don't go out of their way to promote it.
Cloud hosting of QB desktop has pluses and minuses – it works in some situations, not in others.
Thank you for the info on hosted QBDT! I didn't realize that was an option. Appreciate the info.
According to the increasing popularity of Quickbooks online in future, I think Quickbooks Desktop will not be that much easy to use tool for business accounting needs.
I agree that the hosting arrangement has to be solid and work consistently. I've worked with a hosting company for the past 9 years and their service and support are stellar. On the other side of the coin, I've had clients working with Right Networks who have experienced slower performance and limitations in connecting with 3rd party applications.
Like anything else, it depends on the individual set of circumstances and needs. Just hoping that QB continues to offer desktop or I will have to shift my business model. When I use QBO, my efficiency is reduced by 30% because of the response time, inability to open multiple windows and toggle between them to do research and because they've made it "user friendly" and my accounting brain just doesn't follow it.
There are several ways to deal with multiple windows in QuickBooks Online. You can do it with Chrome, and you can also use the desktop app for QuickBooks Online.
I used Quickbooks Online for a couple of years. I switched back to desktop when I realized that I did not own my data, Quickbooks does. As well, I do not like the future of computer software, where its become a service and not a product. I am sure I am part of a dying breed, but I prefer corporations staying out of my business as much as possible.
Until such time as QBO allows perpetual "read only" use of a company's records after a subscription lapses, it really is a useless piece of software. Governments require access to books and records for 5-7 years after the year end the company ceases operating. That means, keeping a quickbooks account open for a long time and paying for it.
QBO needs to make an account read only after a subscription expires but still allow access to it for 5-10 years thereafter if they want any serious business to consider its use.
That's an excellent point Michael.
Michael has an excellent point. As soon as you stop paying your subscription, your books are gone. This is despite the fact that it would be extremely low-cost to maintain that data as read-only for 10+ years. Of course, this would not be an issue if you could just download a copy of your company files, but you cannot.
I unfortunately started out my Quickbooks career using QBO and will be switching to a desktop version for a variety of reasons. I have found QBO to be extremely buggy, with many glitches causing serious issues. Other than the actual bugs, the program itself is simply sluggish. It is fine for daily maintenance of your books, but when you actually need to do work, (ie. end of year) it can be a complete pain and waste of effort. If in 2019, I can work many times faster than the software I am using, there is something wrong.
I also cannot believe that Quickbooks has not allowed users to download and upload company files. This would ease the mind of many users concerned about not owning their data, or users concerned with not having control over data loss. It would also create a backup for users who may be looking for a "undo" button after a few mistakes. For now, I will be much more satisfied with a desktop version.


The financial system in the United States experienced extreme stress and dysfunction from 2007 until the beginning of 2009, contributing to a major global economic downturn. The episode is generally believed to have been the worst economic and financial crisis since the Great Depression.
Narayana Kocherlakota, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, recently described it as follows: "This was a time of tremendous uncertainty, and uncertainty … can strangle an economy. At that time, almost all believed that a horrific economic collapse—already named Depression 2.0—was possible. Indeed many believed that it was inevitable."1 The deepest points of the crisis have passed, and although many segments of the economy are still under strain, the United States is now in the process of slow recovery.
The numerous new programs devised and quickly implemented by the Federal Reserve System were specifically designed to stem the crisis by improving the functioning of various credit and funding markets, building confidence and creating extraordinary levels of liquidity. These Federal Reserve programs were described by Niel Willardson in the December 2008 Region.3 Now that the financial crisis has subsided, this article reviews those programs, describing their magnitude and current status. It also describes the significant impact they have had on the Federal Reserve System's balance sheet.
The financial crisis was accelerated in large part by a liquidity shortfall in nearly all major financial markets as well as the corresponding loss of confidence in illiquid market participants. In normal times, the Federal Reserve uses two primary methods to inject liquidity into markets: open market operations and discount window lending. In the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis, however, these tools alone were insufficient, in both reach and magnitude, to create the liquidity and confidence needed to stabilize markets.
What follows is a description of the major liquidity programs implemented by the Federal Reserve, their magnitude, impact and current status.
The crisis began when financial firms started becoming concerned about the financial condition of other financial firms—it was essentially a modern-day, broad-based "run." This was due, in part, to the burst of the housing bubble, which created worries about the quality of mortgage loans that banks and other firms had made, as well as mortgage-backed securities they owned or were selling. Starting in the fall of 2007, rates of interbank loans with maturity terms of one month or longer rose to very high levels.
LIBOR, an interest rate at which banks lend to one another, is a market-based rate that nicely summarizes the sentiments of financial institutions' comfort with their fellow firms; comparing it against a risk-free rate such as that on U.S. Treasury bills gives a helpful measure over time of perceived risk in lending markets. As noted in Chart A, the "TED spread"—the difference between the 3-month LIBOR and comparable U.S. Treasuries—rose from a normal level of around 50 basis points (a basis point is one-hundredth of a percentage point) to about 150 basis points and then in October 2008 to nearly 450 basis points. This 400-basis-point jump was largely due to the sharp increase in liquidity risk as well as the credit risk perceived by market participants.6 Charts A through C include key dates from the crisis period.
To respond to pressures in the interbank funding market, the Federal Reserve created the Term Auction Facility (TAF) (December 2007–March 2010), which allowed any depository institution eligible to borrow under the primary credit program to bid for a loan at an interest rate determined in an auction process. This facility was introduced on the heels of the introduction of term lending by the Federal Reserve, which first allowed 30-day and later 90-day loans from the discount window. The Federal Reserve has long engaged in short-term backup lending to depository institutions through its discount window. Pricing above market-based terms for lending and other factors led the window to be a contingency, rather than primary, source of funding for banks.
However, the fact that the interbank funding market was responding to negative perceptions of creditworthiness made institutions very reluctant to borrow from the Federal Reserve for fear that this would be perceived as a signal of their poor financial condition. Such a signal could further strain liquidity at these firms. Largely in response to this "stigma," the Federal Reserve created the TAF in December of 2007 as a primary source of liquidity. Due to the perceived difference between auction bidding for discount window credit versus going directly to the discount window to get a loan, the TAF eliminated the stigma of borrowing from the Federal Reserve.
Of the numerous programs created by the Federal Reserve in response to the crisis, the TAF is considered one of the most successful. Depository institutions welcomed it, and early auctions were fully subscribed. While economic experts differ in reasoning, the consensus was that the TAF helped ease broader interbank money market liquidity concerns primarily by relieving individual financial institutions' liquidity issues and related perceptions.7 One study showed that the TAF relieved strains in interbank money markets—a cumulative spread reduction of more than 50 basis points is associated with the TAF announcements and operations.8 Further, at extreme moments during the crisis, such as the period around the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, the TAF served as an important liquidity backstop when the interbank market was stalled. Chart A shows the total amounts borrowed by financial institutions under the TAF and primary credit programs. As noted on this chart, TAF borrowing increased as the spread between U.S. Treasuries and 3-month LIBOR spiked and reached a peak of approximately $500 billion shortly after the Lehman Brothers and American International Group (AIG) events of September 2008. This chart also shows use of the Federal Reserve's primary credit programs, which operated normally during the crisis, though with more attractive pricing and longer terms.
The TAF was adjusted as necessary during the crisis, with longer maturities and higher amounts being auctioned. As markets improved, the amounts bid at TAF auctions began falling short of the total offered; in mid-2009, the Federal Reserve began reducing the total funds auctioned. The final TAF auction was held on March 8, 2010.
At the height of the Bear Stearns situation, the Federal Reserve created the Primary Dealer Credit Facility (PDCF) (March 2008–February 2010) as an alternative source of liquidity. The Federal Reserve created the PDCF because it believed that the financial markets in which primary dealers traditionally finance themselves were seriously impaired.14 Thus, the PDCF was deemed necessary to help primary dealers avoid the problem experienced by Bear Stearns as well as to prevent Bear Stearns' financial distress from spilling over to other institutions.
The PDCF provided overnight discount window loans, fully collateralized by investment-grade securities, to primary dealers. Its structure and function were similar to traditional discount window lending to depository institutions. The facility was designed to promote the orderly functioning of financial markets generally and to improve the ability of primary dealers to provide financing to participants in securitization markets.
As Chart B shows, PDCF usage was high immediately, spiking to $40 billion. It then declined as the financing arrangements with Bear Stearns were concluded. Usage spiked higher yet to $150 billion in September 2008, when Lehman filed for bankruptcy and the Federal Reserve expanded PDCF-eligible collateral in response. This chart also shows the effective fed funds rate spread over comparable Treasuries. Repo market financing often closely tracks fed funds pricing, with overall rates running slightly below the fed funds market. Accordingly, using the more broadly available fed funds spread over Treasuries is a good proxy for what was taking place. Chart B shows the significant jumps in this spread during the crisis period, with noted peaks around the Bear Stearns and Lehman events. As the spread decreased to near zero, lending to primary dealers subsided.
These two spikes in activity immediately following major market disruptions suggest that the PDCF served its purpose of providing an alternate source of funding that prevented disruption from spreading among market participants.15 As market conditions improved thereafter, PDCF usage declined, reaching zero in May 2009. The PDCF was terminated in March 2010.
In addition to creating the PDCF, which was essentially a primary dealer version of traditional overnight discount window lending, the Federal Reserve created the Term Securities Lending Facility (TSLF) (March 2008–February 2010). The TSLF was a TAF-like program designed for use by primary dealers. Under this program, the Federal Reserve would lend up to $200 billion in Treasury securities to primary dealers for a period of 28 days (rather than the standard overnight borrowing). Like the TAF, the terms of these loans were created through auction-style bidding. TSLF loans were secured by securities, including federal agency debt and residential mortgage-backed securities. While the TSLF was not as fully utilized as the TAF in that the submitted bidding amount was substantially lower than the amount offered, total amounts outstanding under this program were often double the amounts outstanding under the PDCF. Once again, as Chart B indicates, the TSLF was used at the times of disruption in primary dealer markets; the two spikes in TSLF activity correspond with the Bear Stearns event and the Lehman bankruptcy.
As financial conditions worsened and confidence in a wide range of markets declined, investor confidence in securities, particularly asset-backed securities, also declined. Large numbers of investors began redeeming their investments in various types of funds. As a result, strains occurred in short-term debt markets as money market mutual funds struggled to sell assets to satisfy redemption requests and meet portfolio rebalancing needs. Due to these liquidity pressures, money market mutual funds and other investors became reluctant to purchase commercial paper, especially at longer-term maturities, which led to further strains in those markets. The Lehman failure also led to significant disruption.
In September 2008, the Federal Reserve created the Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility (AMLF) (September 2008–February 2010) to help ease these strains in markets affected by money market mutual funds. Under this program, the Federal Reserve extended nonrecourse loans (that is, loans on which the lender can recover no more than the collateral pledged) at the primary credit rate to U.S. depository institutions, bank holding companies, and U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks to finance their purchases of high-quality asset-backed commercial paper (ABCP) from money market mutual funds. This was intended to assist mutual funds holding ABCP in meeting demands for investor redemptions and to foster liquidity in ABCP markets and broader markets.
One month later, two companion programs were created as additional methods of easing strains in short-term debt markets. The Commercial Paper Funding Facility (CPFF) (October 2008–February 2010) was created to complement existing liquidity facilities by providing liquidity to term funding markets. The commercial paper market was under considerable strain in September and October 2008 as money market mutual funds—again, largely because of their own liquidity pressures—and other investors became increasingly reluctant to purchase commercial paper, especially at longer-dated maturities. The CPFF had a unique structure since it supported a private sector initiative to provide liquidity to money market investors; it provided financing to a special-purpose vehicle (that is, a corporation established in the private sector for this specific purpose), which used those funds to purchase 3-month commercial paper, both unsecured and asset-backed, directly from issuers.
Similarly, the Money Market Investor Funding Facility (MMIF) (October 2008–October 2009) was created to purchase eligible money market instruments. This program was similar to the CPFF in that it was designed to make loans to special-purpose vehicles, which in turn were to use this financing to purchase eligible money market instruments. However, unlike the CPFF and the AMLF, the MMIF was never utilized and was one of the first programs to be terminated.
Chart C shows usage levels for the AMLF and the CPFF. As the chart shows, AMLF and CPFF use was high immediately upon creation and peaked within a matter of months. CPFF use, for example, peaked a mere three months after its inception; AMLF peaked even more quickly, followed by a steep drop-off. Throughout 2009, usage of both programs steadily decreased as markets returned to normal. Again, market information is instructive—spreads between high-quality commercial paper and comparable Treasuries spiked just prior to operation of these programs, gradually moderated and eventually returned to normal levels.
As mentioned above, the financial crisis began when the housing bubble burst and investors lost confidence in firms holding large quantities of asset-backed securities (ABS), particularly those backed by mortgages. The loss of confidence in these markets became clear in September 2008 with a month-long decline in activity, followed by a near halt in October. At that time, the interest rate spreads on AAA-rated tranches (classes or portions differentiated by risk level) of ABS rose to unprecedented levels, reflecting extreme-risk premiums.
To combat this problem, the Federal Reserve created the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF) (November 2008–June 2010). Under the TALF, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York was authorized to lend up to $200 billion on a nonrecourse basis to holders of AAA-rated ABS backed by newly and recently originated consumer and small business loans. The TALF was intended to support the issuance of ABS collateralized by student loans, auto loans, credit card loans and loans guaranteed by the Small Business Administration, which in turn supports economic activity by providing credit to households and small businesses.
The first TALF auction issued $4.7 billion in loans; the second auction only $1.7 billion. The TALF's largest auction occurred less than three months later on June 2, 2009, and resulted in $11.5 billion in loans. Although some thought that initial borrowing levels were not high enough to revive securitization markets, there is strong evidence that the TALF had a positive effect. As TALF operations got under way, most markets, but notably not the commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) market, began to show signs of recovery.19 By mid-2009, issuance of consumer ABS was gradually rising and spreads on AAA-rated credit card ABS had significantly narrowed.20 Due to continued strains in the CMBS market, the Federal Reserve expanded the scope of the TALF in May 2009 to make highly-rated CMBS eligible for the program. Shortly thereafter, the risk spread on the AAA-rated CMBS began a fairly steady decline. This, in combination with the fact that lower-rated CMBS (not TALF-eligible) showed little or no improvement, is evidence of the TALF's effectiveness.
All other special Federal Reserve programs were terminated at the end of 2009 or the beginning of 2010, as their respective markets stabilized, but the TALF, initially scheduled to terminate at the end of December 2009, was extended to address continued strains in specific markets. For newly issued ABS and legacy CMBS, the TALF continued through March 31, 2010, and for newly issued CMBS, it is scheduled to continue until June 30, 2010. This extended duration is due, at least in part, to the fact that the TALF supports issuance of ABS, the market that experienced the greatest disruption.
On May 9, 2010, in response to the reemerging strains in U.S. dollar short-term funding markets in Europe, various central banks announced reconstituted temporary U.S. dollar liquidity swap facilities. Like the swap arrangements that expired on February 1, 2010, these facilities enable central banks to conduct tenders of U.S. dollars in their local markets at fixed local rates for full allotment.
What were the losses associated with all of these special liquidity programs? To date, the Federal Reserve has not incurred a single loss on any of them. Many programs reported significant income, which ultimately is turned over to the U.S. Treasury after Federal Reserve expenses are paid. Also, because of the manner in which arrangements are structured, the Federal Reserve bears no foreign exchange risk or credit risk on the swaps program.
In addition to the creation of the liquidity programs described above, the Federal Reserve System used its emergency lending powers to prevent the disorderly failure of two systemically important firms, Bear Stearns and AIG. This was done to prevent spillover to the U.S. financial system and the economy more broadly.
Similarly, AIG faced a liquidity crisis shortly thereafter when it, too, was unable to fund its operations in illiquid markets. AIG was also beginning to suffer losses stemming from its activities dealing with subprime mortgages: AIG had a significant securities lending program that dealt in mortgage-backed securities, and it issued credit default swaps funded through investments in mortgage-backed securities. By September 2008, AIG was faced with the dilemma of having to sell large amounts of its holdings in securities to raise sufficient capital in a market where the value of such securities had plummeted. AIG would have had to sell those holdings at a significant loss and, as such, may not have been able to raise sufficient capital to remain solvent. The failure of AIG would have had significant spillover effects and intensified the already severe crisis, worsening global economic conditions. To prevent this from occurring, the Federal Reserve agreed to make loans to AIG to give it the necessary liquidity to allow it to sell its assets over time so that their value could be maximized. As part of the transaction, the Federal Reserve received a 79.9 percent equity interest in AIG, as well as a pledge and later transfer of asset-backed securities, which are held in other special-purpose vehicles, Maiden Lane LLC II and III.
These rescues, which were heavily coordinated with government officials, were extraordinary actions for a central bank and were not without controversy. Certainly, it would have been preferable not to have had to make these types of emergency rescues; yet in those particular circumstances, it was thought necessary in order to avoid major disruptions of institutions directly connected to Bear Stearns and AIG, as well as the indirect connections to the entire financial system. The goals of these programs included their being managed and liquidated in a manner consistent with taxpayers' best interests. The amount of assets held by the Federal Reserve under these programs has remained relatively stable since the time the loans were first made; as of the end of first quarter 2010, their assets totaled approximately $115 billion.
The unprecedented size of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet is a tangible reminder of the stress imposed by the financial crisis. As of the end of first quarter 2010, the size of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet remains at historically high levels with slightly over $2.3 trillion in assets; it has remained between this amount and $1.85 trillion since December 2008. Although the size of the balance sheet has remained rather steady during this time, the underlying composition of assets has shifted significantly. Chart D shows the changes in Federal Reserve asset holdings during the past several years.
Up until September 2008 or so, the level of securities held outright by the Federal Reserve declined as it sold Treasury securities to accommodate its aggressive implementation of liquidity facilities. This period was marked by unprecedented expansion of nontraditional programs and assets such as primary dealer loans, the TAF and central bank swap lines, among others.
But in early to mid-2009, demand for new loans through these special liquidity programs dropped substantially. At that time, the Federal Reserve began a large-scale asset purchase program, buying Treasury securities, federal agency securities and government agency-guaranteed mortgage-backed securities. The loans that now remain on the Federal Reserve's balance sheet can largely be tracked to the extraordinary institution-specific arrangements with Bear Stearns and AIG.
The securities holdings currently on the Federal Reserve's balance sheet are remarkable in two respects. The first is their sheer size—the Federal Reserve owns about $1.1 trillion in agency-guaranteed mortgage-backed securities and about $170 billion in agency debt. Those two categories now account for more than half of the Federal Reserve's current total asset holdings; before the crisis, they accounted for a negligible fraction of the total.
Second, unlike the Treasury securities typically on the Federal Reserve's balance sheet, these securities were issued by housing finance agencies (mostly Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). That said, since these agency securities, like Treasuries, are guaranteed by the U.S. government, they have no default risk for the Federal Reserve (although they do have interest rate and prepayment risk).
While currency outstanding ("Federal Reserve Notes" in chart) remained relatively stable during the crisis, bank reserves rose dramatically, from about $10 billion in August 2008 to $1.2 trillion in February 2010. The last major component of liabilities, supplemental Treasury balances, also has fluctuated as necessary to assist the Federal Reserve in funding its special liquidity programs.
The financial crisis left an indelible mark on the nation's economy and will continue to shape policy going forward. The Federal Reserve's emergency liquidity programs played an important part in reestablishing financial stability, and most are no longer necessary. Therefore, nearly all of the new liquidity programs targeted to banking, primary dealer and money markets have been terminated. The TAF was the most recent to close, conducting its final auction on March 8, 2010. The primary credit term program reverted to an overnight program, also in March 2010. Of all these broader programs, only the TALF continues to operate; it will complete its final loans on June 30, 2010, and its lending is currently limited to loans backed by commercial mortgage-backed securities.
The relatively quick winding down of these programs is a strong indicator that the programs were well-tailored to meet short-term needs during a time of crisis. The liquidity problems at which each was directed have largely been resolved, and financial markets that had seized up during the crisis have been restored to near normalcy.
The assets related to the financial crisis that remain on the Federal Reserve's balance sheet consist of the special arrangements with AIG and Bear Stearns, the TALF, and federal agency debt and agency securities.
The United States, and many other nations, have emerged from the recent financial crisis with body blows—depressed economic growth, significant unemployment and decreased household wealth.
These blows to the U.S. economy have been felt deeply by individual households and citizens, and they will continue to have serious consequences for some time to come.
Nonetheless, there is little doubt that outcomes could have been much, much worse. As a major part of the international effort to stabilize financial markets and avert a greater financial meltdown, the Federal Reserve implemented a broad set of traditional and nontraditional programs. These innovative programs provided critical liquidity to markets and played an important role in restoring confidence and stability to the U.S. economy.
For additional information about Federal Reserve System liquidity programs, see http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets and http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst.htm.
Data sources for charts are the Federal Reserve and Bloomberg.
1 Kocherlakota, Narayana. "The Economy and Why the Federal Reserve Needs to Supervise Banks." Allied Executives Business and Economic Outlook Symposium. Minneapolis, Minn. March 2, 2010.
2 Bernanke, Ben S. Remarks at the Nomination of Ben S. Bernanke for Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Oak Bluffs, Miss. Aug. 25, 2009.
3 Willardson, Niel. "Actions to Restore Financial Stability: A Summary of Recent Federal Reserve Initiatives." The Region. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. December 2008.
5 Bernanke, Ben S., "Federal Reserve's Exit Strategy." Prepared Remarks for Testimony before the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Feb. 10, 2010.
6 McAndrews, James, Asani Sarkar and Zhenyu Wang. "The Effect of the Term Auction Facility on the London Inter-Bank Offered Rate." Staff Report 335. Federal Reserve Bank of New York. July 2008.
7 Wu, Tao. "On the Effectiveness of the Federal Reserve's New Liquidity Facilities." Research Department Working Paper 0808. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. May 2008.
9 Adrian, Tobias, Christopher Burke and James McAndrews. "The Federal Reserve's Primary Dealer Credit Facility." Current Issues in Economics and Finance 15, no. 4. August 2009.
14 Minutes. Meeting of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. March 16, 2008.
16 Adrian, Tobias, Karin Kimbrough and Dina Marchioni. "The Federal Reserve's Commercial Paper Funding Facility." Staff Report 423. Federal Reserve Bank of New York. January 2010.
18 Duygan-Bumpt, Burcu, Patric M. Parkinson, Eric S. Rosengren, Gustavo A. Suarez, and Paul S. Willen. "How Effective Were the Federal Reserve Emergency Liquidity Facilities? Evidence from the Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility." Working Paper QAU10-3, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. April 29, 2010.
19 Robinson, Kenneth. "TALF: Jump-Starting the Securitization Markets." Economic Letter—Insights from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas 4, no. 6. August 2009.
20 Dudley, William C. "A Preliminary Assessment of the TALF." Remarks at the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and Pension Real Estate Association's Public-Private Investment Program Summit. New York City. June 4, 2009.
21 Fleming, Michael J. and Nicholas J. Klagge. "The Federal Reserve's Foreign Exchange Swap Lines." Current Issues in Economics and Finance 16, no. 4. Federal Reserve Bank of New York. April 2010.
22 Bernanke, Ben S. "The Economic Outlook." Congressional Testimony. April 2, 2008.
23 Dudley, William C. "The Economic Outlook and the Fed's Balance Sheet: The Issue of 'How' versus 'When'." Remarks at the Association for a Better New York. New York City. July 29, 2009.


You can draw and erase simply with a tissue...Sitting in your bed at night.
Draw even when it almost doesn't glow and that is after many hours anyway. Then just put it under a light for a few minutes and continue.
It works like a regular dry-erase whiteboard except it glows in the dark!
And you can save some electricity with this gadget too.
- Draw in the dark or in a daytime with whiteboard marker and erase with a tissue.
- Put thin paper on it and use the backlight to draw with pencil.
Here is a list of basic things i used. But in this tutorial i will tell you what else you can use and i´ll give you some tips. And i have first one: You can draw with a flashlight! It looks so awesome that you might build this just because of that:D Search the net, you can type "glow in the dark draw" and will know what i mean.
glass - as "Drawing layer"
glow in the dark spray - as "Glow material"
- shadow effect - if you are using thick glass - means that you will see shadows of your drawing on the glow material under it. Only when it´s daytime or there is a light in the room. But it´s not that bad. You will get used to it quick.
I've choosed glass and went to a basement. Air is quite clean and steady there so no flies or dust will ruin the work. Also these glow in the dark chemicals are propably very toxic and while they are drying, you don't wanna breathe them.
And we can start -> by cleaning one side of the layer as much as possible and letting it to dry. The other one will be for drawing and at this moment it don't matter if it's dirty.
Apply the glow in the dark stuff by spraying it onto the cleaned side of your "drawing layer" (not drawing side).
Put it on on a paper, because if you don´t, then you will have pretty nice glowing square outline on a floor. Better to avoid that...or maybe you want that, could look nice, but it's not so safe for pets and ect.
More layers will glow more of course and longer. I've made like 4, and have to say it glows pretty damn well. Hooray! I takes many hours, even days. Do not rush it, let it dry!
If you can get some kind of foil (update: or a sheet or a tape) that glows in the dark, you´re lucky! Definitely use that instead.
If not - wear protection. Do not breathe it!
More glowing effect can be achieved by adding a light reflective material underneath the glow in the dark layer.
Because some of the light goes through glow in the dark paint. And so this will reflect it back charging it even more.
You can use white paper, a mirror... things like that.
Mirror is a option and also it is good as a "Base" at the same time. I've choosed that.
Making a base...well, use anything you want. Glass is good, but metal, thick plastic or wood is better because you can't break it so easily.
Choose something that is tough and thick enough so it will hold any possible vapors inside. A thick paper like for instance a cardboard isn't such a good idea..
I´ve used a mirror. It took me some time to cut it nicely so it fits the glass (but i´m not gonna show you guys, it´s too humiliating for me .D) and when the shape is good... it´s time to take some glue and tape.
Now we should test it. We will see if there are enough layers and it glows good. Test how long it glows, if it´s not too heavy and things like that. But mostly if the glow paint is really dry, cause if not, then after you put it all together, you will propably see an effect much like you have water between two tiles of glass . and when you squeeze it, it makes dark spots. That´s not nice.
Before testing you should clean the mirror very well first.
Then put the mirror (base) facing down onto the glass (drawing layer). Glowing material is in the middle...nice and safe.
Put some tape there. And see if you are ok with that.
There is propably paint where you will be putting a glue or just sharp edges, either way...disassemble it, sandpaper edges of the glass and also the mirror. It will help the glue to hold it together and you don´t cut yourself in the future. Maybe you will need to carefully clean it a bit again. Maybe use a thinner. Then put it together again.
1. The glue. Put a layer after layer. Slowly. At least first two, because it can soaks between the glass and the mirror.
It helps when you put your whiteboard onto something, so you don´t accidentaly glue it to paper under it.
Then I´ve sprayed gold paint over the tape first as you can see, then sprayed varnish over that. And now i just have to wait.
You might want to protect you drawings. Make a simple sheet from some plastic so you don´t erase something by mistake.
Make some casing, i think it´s necessary. Specially when you use mirror and glass like me.
So.. i just took folder with my sketchbook inside that i already had. It is a nice black eco-leather.
Buy some whiteboard markers .. and enjoy!
What is glow in the dark foil? I've never heard of it and I can't find any online.
yep, exactly. It works like every other Glow in the dark stuff. Just give it some light and it charges itself. Of course it will not glow forever, but this one glows almost all night (if not all night) and i can still see what i'm drawing. There is no button :D Just light. This glows very bright, when you put it right under a lightbulb for 5minutes and then turn all lights off it's like a flashlight.
How do u turn it on???
you can use it, works fine, it's light-weight but very easy to scratch because it's plastic (or like plastic).
just search for "Glow in the dark spray" on amazon or google or ebay and you will find it.


The only thing we love more than snow in Park City is some great athletic competition on snow! The FIS World Championships deliver this in a big way. From February 1stthrough February 10th, the world's top freestyle skiers and snowboarders will gather in Park City to display their jaw-dropping skills and declare which competitors are the world champions of their sport. Deer Valley, Park City Mountain, and Solitude are hosting, and the media will once again have our little town in the spotlight.
Aerials Freestyle skiing is the sport of high-flying acrobatic skiing. Not only do these athletes have incredible air awareness, they also need to know how to ski. Aerial competitions traditionally consist of eight10-foot jumps that the skiers will hit with speeds of up to 45 mph. Once they hit the jump, aerialists sore up to 70ft in the air completing multiple flips and twists before landing on a 38-degree hill. Aerial skiing is a judged sport, and competitors receive a score based on jump takeoff (20%), jump form (50%) and landing (30%). The higher degree of difficulty, the higher the potential score.
Moguls and Dual Moguls on Deer Valley's Champion ski run are both freestyle skiing competitions consisting of timed runs on a steep, heavily moguled course, stressing technical turns, aerial maneuvers and speed. In single moguls, one athlete competes at a time and is judged on speed, two jumps and technique down the middle of the course. In dual moguls, two athletes start at the same time and race to the finish side-by-side. This exciting event is a race to the finish. Athletes will compete up to four times a night as they advance to a new heat until a winner is crowned.
Snowboard Halfpipe and Ski Halfpipe have a long history at Park City Mountain. The 2019 freeskiing and snowboarding halfpipe events will both take place on a 22-f00t snow pipe with athletes jumping up to 24ft above the lip of the pipe. These events are scored by judges with one overall impression score based on the following criteria: execution of tricks, variety of tricks, difficulty, pipe use, and amplitude.
Freeskiing Big Air and Snowboard Big Air will be held at Canyons Village at Park City Mountain. For the first time in the history of World Championships, Freeskiing Big Air will be included as a medal event. This inclusion at 2019 FIS World Championships will mirror the IOC decision to include this event in the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympic Games.
Snowboard Slopestyle and Ski Slopestyle are similar competitions and will use the same course at Park City Mountain. Similar to a skate park, competitors ride and ski down a course with a variety of obstacles, including rails, jumps and other snow terrain features. Points are scored for amplitude, originality and quality of tricks. Ski Slopestyle made its debut in the World Championships for the first time in 2011 at Park City Mountain.
Parallel Snowboard Racing at Park City Mountain Parallel Giant Slalom and Parallel Slalom are dual snowboard racing competitions. These events are raced on more narrow boards than their distance halfpipe and Slopestyle boards, with the riders feet facing more downhill on the mount. The competition is simple – first to the bottom wins. Did you watch Ester Ledecká win gold in the 2018 Winter Olympics in PyeongChang? Watch her again as she and the top Snowboard racing athletes as they zoom down the 2002 Winter Olympic Games course at Park City Mountain.
Both Snowboardcross and Skicross are events that involve multiple athletes simultaneously racing down a hill at the same time using speed and skill to make it over cambered turns, various types of jumps, berms, rollers, drops and steep and flat sections designed to challenge the riders' and skiers' ability to stay in control while maintaining maximum speed. The races are set up into qualifying rounds, with the top two athletes continuing onto the finals.
Our hearts are with our hometown athletes!
For a full listing of when and where competitions will take place, click here. We at Chin-MacQuoid-Fleming-Harris hope to see you as wide-eyed as we will be watching the world's best give it their all. How lucky are we to have the FIS World Championships right in our hometown? We're wishing all of our local athletes who will be competing the very best runs of their lives!


Artists Posters-Art Exhibition Posters-Free Delivery.
Early posters were made using wood type & wood cuts with no colour. Although lithography was invented in 1798, it wasn't used until later when they were able to use three lithograph blocks, each being printed in a different colour, and superimposed onto each other. By the late nineteenth century, especially in France, the art of the poster had blossomed. Major contemporary artists were used to design posters to advertise events & goods. By World War One & the onset of the Russian Revolution, posters became an effective propaganda tool.
After the First World War, poster artists were becoming famous in their own right, rather than artists designing posters, poster designers were sought after. The use of the poster broadened into selling & advertising brands. The use of a poster to advertise an artist exhibition or show was now being used but due to the costs involved in colour printing, most artists used text & designs in black & white or in monochrome.
However, in Paris in the 1930s, Fernand Mourlot, the grandson of the founder of Mourlot studios, began inviting a new generation of artists to work directly on lithography stones.
Like Mourlot, Maeght also published artist's prints and their posters using colour lithography. Maeght started his career as a printer & lithographer in Cannes but in 1936 made his print shop into an Art Gallery, later moving to Paris after the Second World War.
The importance of the Curwen Press in England should not be overlooked. Harold Curwen took over the business in 1914 and began to specialise in well-designed work. After 1920, Oliver Simon extended Curwen's reputation for good typography and design to book-work. The Press employed many important artists and designers, most notable among whom were Claud Lovat Fraser, Barnett Freedman, Edward Bawden, Albert Rutherston, and Edward Ardizzone. The School Print Series which were issued during & after the Second World War were posters designed by British artists particularly aimed for the school market.. Throughout the 1930's and the 1940's the Curwen press was synonymous with lithographic printing, producing high quality prints & books. However,in 1958 due to the emergence of artists original prints, Timothy and Robert Simon (sons of Oliver and Herbert) set up the Curwen Studio for artists under the management of Stanley Jones, where they developed prints with exciting new qualities. There followed a period when artists including Henry Moore, Barbara Hepworth, Graham Sutherland, Elisabeth Frink, Alan Davie, Josef Herman and John Piper produced many important limited edition, hand signed lithographs. Paula Rego still uses the Curwen Press for her editions today.
We have a range of artist posters by Twentieth century artists including Picasso, Paolozzi, Hockney etc. Some posters are printed in lithography by Mourlot, Maeght and the Curwen Press, some are signed by the artist.
Joseph Beuys Poster for the Victoria and Albert Museum 1988.
Joseph Beuys Poster for Anthony d'Offay Gallery 1989.
HARRISON, MICHAEL. Paintings, prints and drawings.
Giacomo Manzu Poster for Hanover Gallery, 1969.
POLISH ART. 6 Salon Marcowy 71.
AP SOK. XII. Triennale. Olanda/Pays-Bas/Holland.
DUNOYER DE SEGONZAC. Hommage a Dunoyer de Segonzac. OEuvre Gravé.
LANSKOY, ANDRÉ. Lanskoy chez Louis Carré. Poster. Paris 1957.
BRAQUE, GEORGES. La Nature Morte a travers les ages. Orangerie des Tuileries, Paris 17 Avril-25 Juin 1952. Poster.
M. de Gallard. Poster. Galerie Framond.
135 Artists, 270 Pieces of Work Involving Some Aspect of Printmaking. Waterloo Gallery, 23-61 Gray Street, Waterloo SE1, June 9-July 16.


When we think of our fellow Americans serving in the military and the sacrifices their jobs place upon them and their families, we are in deep gratitude. During these desperate days let us be faithful prayer warriors on behalf of those who have committed themselves to defending America. Likewise let us Pray for the IDF, as they continue to defend Israel.