BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  AB 674
                                                                  Page  1


          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
          AB 674 (Quirk-Silva)
          As Amended  January 14, 2014
          Majority  

           ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT            8-0                             
           
           -------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Medina, Mansoor, Campos,  |
          |     |Daly, Fong, Fox, Linder,  |
          |     |Melendez                  |
          |     |                          |
           -------------------------------- 
           SUMMARY  :  Updates the definition of microenterprise and  
          microenterprise development organization to more accurately  
          reflect industry practices.  Specifically,  this bill  :  

          1)Specifies that the owner of a microenterprise may be employed  
            by another firm including full or part-time.

          2)Adds a limited liability company to the list of legal  
            structures under which a microenterprise may be organized.

          3)Updates the list describing the kinds of capital a  
            microenterprise may require during the normal course of  
            business.

          4)Removes the specific list of examples of microenterprises.

          5)Makes other technical and conforming changes.

           EXISTING LAW  defines "microenterprise" as a sole proprietorship,  
          partnership, or corporation with fewer than five employees,  
          including the owner, and generally lacking access to  
          conventional loans, equity, or other banking services.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  None

           COMMENTS  :  Business owners, with no employees make up the single  
          largest component of California firms, 2.8 million out of an  
          estimated 3.5 million firms in 2010.  Microenterprises, meaning  
          businesses with less than five employees, represent  
          approximately 93% of all businesses in the state, or  
          approximately 3.2 million of all businesses.  These non-employer  








                                                                  AB 674
                                                                  Page  2


          and smallest size firms create jobs, generate taxes, and  
          revitalize communities.  Common types of microenterprises  
          consist of business enterprises that provide both goods and  
          services including engineering, computer system design,  
          housekeeping, construction, landscaping, clothing production,  
          and personnel services.   

          In challenging economic times, these smallest size businesses  
          have functioned as economic engines.  As an example, during the  
          nation's economic downturn from 1999 to 2003, microenterprises  
          created 318,183 new jobs or 77% of all employment growth, while  
          larger businesses with more than 50 employees lost over 444,000  
          jobs.  From 2000 to 2001, microenterprises created 62,731 jobs  
          in the state, accounting for nearly 64% of all new employment  
          growth.  In this most recent recession the trend continued, with  
          the number of non-employer firms increasing from 2.6 million  
          firms reporting $137 billion in revenues for 2008 to 2.8 million  
          firms reporting $138 billion in revenues for 2010.  In the  
          post-recession economy, these businesses are expected to become  
          increasingly important due to their ability to be more flexible  
          and better suited to meet niche market needs.  

          However, their small size also results in certain market  
          challenges, including, but not limited to, having difficulty in  
          meeting the traditional credit and collateral requirements of  
          mainstream financial institutions.  Specialized technical  
          assistance, access to microloans, regulatory flexibility, and  
          collaborative marketing opportunities can help many  
          microenterprises overcome or at least minimize these  
          difficulties.

           Microenterprise and Income Disparity  :  Income disparity between  
          the most wealthy households in the U.S. and those with the least  
          income has widened.  A 2011 Congressional Budget Office (CBO)  
          report on after-tax incomes of American households confirms this  
          statement and makes several key findings.  

          According to the CBO report, between 1979 and 2007, income for  
          households at the higher end of the income scale rose much more  
          rapidly than income for households in the middle and at the  
          lower end of the income scale.  Most significantly, by the end  
          of the report period (2005 and 2007), the after-tax income  
          received by the top 20% exceeded the after-tax income of the  
          remaining 80%.  The chart below illustrates the CBO's findings  








                                                                  AB 674
                                                                  Page  3


          in more detail.

           -------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |             After-Tax Income Growth 1979 to 2007             |
           -------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |--------------+-------------+--------------+-------------------|
          |    Income    |   Income    |  Percentile  | Percentage Growth |
          |   Bracket    |   Earners   |              |                   |
          |--------------+-------------+--------------+-------------------|
          |      1       |Top 1%       |        100th |               275%|
          |--------------+-------------+--------------+-------------------|
          |      2       |Next 20%     | 81st to 99th |                65%|
          |--------------+-------------+--------------+-------------------|
          |      3       |Next 60%     | 20th to 80th |                40%|
          |--------------+-------------+--------------+-------------------|
          |      4       |Bottom 20%   |  1st to 19th |                18%|
           --------------------------------------------------------------- 
           -------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |   Source: Trends in the Distribution of House Income Between |
          |1979 and 2007,3 Congressional Budget Office, 2011             |
          |                                                              |
           -------------------------------------------------------------- 

          The two primary reasons for the increase in income disparities  
          were the uneven distribution in the sources of household income  
          and the differing economic circumstances of those sources during  
          the 28-year report period.  Households in the higher income  
          brackets (1 and 2) received a majority of their income through  
          capital gains and business income, which as a share of total  
          income increased in value, while individuals in the bottom two  
          brackets (3 and 4) received a majority of their income from  
          labor income and capital income, which decreased in value.   
          During the recession, these financial dynamics would have likely  
          continued, driven by high unemployment (core component of labor  
          income), and lower rental rates (core component of capital  
          income).  

          The findings in the CBO report suggest that policies that  
          inhibit access to self-employment and microenterprise  
          development limit wealth creation among low and middle-income  
          households and, conversely, policies which break down barriers  
          and support greater access to capital and small business  
          formation, especially to historically underserved populations,  
          could begin to break the trend.  This bill updates a key  








                                                                  AB 674
                                                                  Page  4


          definition in this import policy discussion.
           

          Analysis Prepared by  :    Toni Symonds / J., E.D. & E. / (916)  
          319-2090 


                                                                FN: 0002952