• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Profits Not Prosperity

AthenaAwakened

Contributor
Joined
Sep 17, 2003
Messages
5,338
Location
Right behind you so ... BOO!
Basic Beliefs
non-theist, anarcho-socialist
Jobless recovery

Economic growth but sluggish job growth

Top .1% incomes soar while the bottom rungs of the socioeconomic flounder and drown


How is this happening

Here's an idea

Five years after the official end of the Great Recession, corporate profits are high, and the stock market is booming. Yet most Americans are not sharing in the recovery. While the top 0.1% of income recipients—which include most of the highest-ranking corporate executives—reap almost all the income gains, good jobs keep disappearing, and new employment opportunities tend to be insecure and underpaid. Corporate profitability is not translating into widespread economic prosperity.

The allocation of corporate profits to stock buybacks deserves much of the blame. Consider the 449 companies in the S&P 500 index that were publicly listed from 2003 through 2012. During that period those companies used 54% of their earnings—a total of $2.4 trillion—to buy back their own stock, almost all through purchases on the open market. Dividends absorbed an additional 37% of their earnings. That left very little for investments in productive capabilities or higher incomes for employees.

The buyback wave has gotten so big, in fact, that even shareholders—the presumed beneficiaries of all this corporate largesse—are getting worried. “It concerns us that, in the wake of the financial crisis, many companies have shied away from investing in the future growth of their companies,” Laurence Fink, the chairman and CEO of BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, wrote in an open letter to corporate America in March. “Too many companies have cut capital expenditure and even increased debt to boost dividends and increase share buybacks.”

Why are such massive resources being devoted to stock repurchases? Corporate executives give several reasons, which I will discuss later. But none of them has close to the explanatory power of this simple truth: Stock-based instruments make up the majority of their pay, and in the short term buybacks drive up stock prices. In 2012 the 500 highest-paid executives named in proxy statements of U.S. public companies received, on average, $30.3 million each; 42% of their compensation came from stock options and 41% from stock awards. By increasing the demand for a company’s shares, open-market buybacks automatically lift its stock price, even if only temporarily, and can enable the company to hit quarterly earnings per share (EPS) targets.

http://hbr.org/2014/09/profits-without-prosperity/ar/1
 
When your economic system is based on the model of totalitarian dictatorship is this any wonder?
 
Oh noes teh greedy corporationz is giving their money away!
 
Oh noes teh greedy corporationz is giving their money away!


That's what you took away from the article?


Wow.


FYI, I am one of those shareholders that is concerned, being that I have a significant amount of money sunk into a BlackRock fund. When the person responsible for my money sends out a missive to the financial industry saying (in effect) that something is rotten in Denmark (or Wall Street), then I tend to perk my ears up and listen.

One of the safest and surest investments you can make is in index funds. You basically park your money and wait for the market to grow, which it almost always does. Now, due to the pursuit of short term profits, these very stable investments are being put at risk, as evidenced by the big red flag thrown up by the biggest manager of index funds.
 
Oh noes teh greedy corporationz is giving their money away!


That's what you took away from the article?


Wow.


FYI, I am one of those shareholders that is concerned, being that I have a significant amount of money sunk into a BlackRock fund. When the person responsible for my money sends out a missive to the financial industry saying (in effect) that something is rotten in Denmark (or Wall Street), then I tend to perk my ears up and listen.

One of the safest and surest investments you can make is in index funds. You basically park your money and wait for the market to grow, which it almost always does. Now, due to the pursuit of short term profits, these very stable investments are being put at risk, as evidenced by the big red flag thrown up by the biggest manager of index funds.

The idea that greedy corporations taken as a group have lots of wonderful, profitable projects they could be doing but instead return the money to investors because they are "short term focused" is abjectly stupid.

I'm astonished there are willing buyers for such absurdly silly dreck.
 
That's what you took away from the article?


Wow.


FYI, I am one of those shareholders that is concerned, being that I have a significant amount of money sunk into a BlackRock fund. When the person responsible for my money sends out a missive to the financial industry saying (in effect) that something is rotten in Denmark (or Wall Street), then I tend to perk my ears up and listen.

One of the safest and surest investments you can make is in index funds. You basically park your money and wait for the market to grow, which it almost always does. Now, due to the pursuit of short term profits, these very stable investments are being put at risk, as evidenced by the big red flag thrown up by the biggest manager of index funds.

The idea that greedy corporations taken as a group have lots of wonderful, profitable projects they could be doing but instead return the money to investors because they are "short term focused" is abjectly stupid.

I'm astonished there are willing buyers for such absurdly silly dreck.

The other question is why now? We've been hearing about how evil corporations are since the 80s and the movie Wall Street. We also heard in the 80s how Japan was going to kick US ass because they thought 50 years ahead while American companies only thought about tomorrow. Of all the explanations, it's the weakest one.
 
That's what you took away from the article?

Wow.

FYI, I am one of those shareholders that is concerned, being that I have a significant amount of money sunk into a BlackRock fund. When the person responsible for my money sends out a missive to the financial industry saying (in effect) that something is rotten in Denmark (or Wall Street), then I tend to perk my ears up and listen.

One of the safest and surest investments you can make is in index funds. You basically park your money and wait for the market to grow, which it almost always does. Now, due to the pursuit of short term profits, these very stable investments are being put at risk, as evidenced by the big red flag thrown up by the biggest manager of index funds.

The idea that greedy corporations taken as a group have lots of wonderful, profitable projects they could be doing but instead return the money to investors because they are "short term focused" is abjectly stupid.

I'm astonished there are willing buyers for such absurdly silly dreck.

Yes, I too can't believe anyone falls for this silly dreck.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324582004578456623771366426

Safeway Inc. SWY +0.29% Chief Executive Steven Burd received a $2.3 million stock award this past March in part because he oversaw a 61% jump in the company's per-share profit last year.

This Burd fellow must be a management genius! Which, of course, makes him worth every penny of his $2.3 million stock award. Safeway is fortunate to have this guy at the helm overseeing such wonderful growth.

The earnings increase didn't come from the grocery chain's sales, which barely budged. And it didn't result from Safeway squeezing out more profit as its operating margin narrowed.

What made the difference was $1.2 billion in stock buybacks mostly financed with borrowed money. By reducing the number of shares by which Safeway's profits had to be divided, the buybacks lifted per-share earnings growth by about half. That improved a metric used to determine the CEO's incentive pay.

I'm sure it was just a coincidence that the stock buyback just happened to inflate the metric used to calculate Burd's stock bonus and that there were other compelling reasons to go nearly $1.2 billion into additional debt in order to finance the stock buybacks.
 
I'm sure it was just a coincidence that the stock buyback just happened to inflate the metric used to calculate Burd's stock bonus and that there were other compelling reasons to go nearly $1.2 billion into additional debt in order to finance the stock buybacks.

You know what's crazy?

Stockholder's like the stock price to go up.

If the best use of the money is to give it back to the shareholders this is exactly the right thing to do.

You are still short of any argument that even slightly suggests that companies as a group are turning down profitable investments to return money to shareholders. You may have a tricky time identifying all these supposedly wonderful projects that exist that no one is doing and explaining why the hundreds of billions of dollars of public/private/international capital in a market where capital is widely regarded as cheap and plentiful is out there is not out there doing them.

Assuming you are the sort of person who likes to make arguments that have some plausible connection to reality.
 
Um, no. Not at all.

so stock buybacks have an equal chance of causing a stock to drop?

Huh? What a non sequitur. Attempting to make the stock go up not equal manipulation.

They are supposed to try to make the stock go up you know.

And the answer to your question would be "versus what?"

If a company had lots of wonderful growth projects I would expect the stock to go up more by doing lots of wonderful growth projects. The stock market loves a good growth stock. If the company is lacking good growth projects I would expect the stock to go up more by doing a stock buy back than by doing lots of crappy money losing projects. Investors can redeploy the money they get in the stock buybacks to the companies that have the good growth projects. And it's all good. For everyone.

At some point we don't want the buggy whip companies to keep investing in buggy whip plants. Better they should distribute the money to investors so it can be invested in auto plants.
 
so stock buybacks have an equal chance of causing a stock to drop?

Huh? What a non sequitur. Attempting to make the stock go up not equal manipulation.

They are supposed to try to make the stock go up you know.

And the answer to your question would be "versus what?"

If a company had lots of wonderful growth projects I would expect the stock to go up more by doing lots of wonderful growth projects. The stock market loves a good growth stock. If the company is lacking good growth projects I would expect the stock to go up more by doing a stock buy back than by doing lots of crappy money losing projects. Investors can redeploy the money they get in the stock buybacks to the companies that have the good growth projects. And it's all good. For everyone.

At some point we don't want the buggy whip companies to keep investing in buggy whip plants. Better they should distribute the money to investors so it can be invested in auto plants.

in order for stock buybacks not to manipulate the market for said stock, the outcome of the buyback would have to somewhat in doubt.

Now understand what I typed. I did not say buybacks were illegal. I did not say they were not useful, were not even helpful.

I asked did they manipulate the market.
 
Aren't stock buybacks a manipulation of the market?

The bonuses of most CEOs is tied to the stock price of the companies. Stock buy backs are a way to increase the price of the stock.

It is incredibly inefficient way to raise the prices, and is not the best deal for the stockholders, they would prefer to have the money distributed as dividends rather than stock buy backs, but they live by the sword and die by it.
 
Huh? What a non sequitur. Attempting to make the stock go up not equal manipulation.

They are supposed to try to make the stock go up you know.

And the answer to your question would be "versus what?"

If a company had lots of wonderful growth projects I would expect the stock to go up more by doing lots of wonderful growth projects. The stock market loves a good growth stock. If the company is lacking good growth projects I would expect the stock to go up more by doing a stock buy back than by doing lots of crappy money losing projects. Investors can redeploy the money they get in the stock buybacks to the companies that have the good growth projects. And it's all good. For everyone.

At some point we don't want the buggy whip companies to keep investing in buggy whip plants. Better they should distribute the money to investors so it can be invested in auto plants.

in order for stock buybacks not to manipulate the market for said stock, the outcome of the buyback would have to somewhat in doubt.

Now understand what I typed. I did not say buybacks were illegal. I did not say they were not useful, were not even helpful.

I asked did they manipulate the market.

It's not manipulation because manipulation entails misinformation or insider trading. When a company buys back stock it's just the opposite of a split. In both instances, the market is informed of the buyback/split before it is done.
 
in order for stock buybacks not to manipulate the market for said stock, the outcome of the buyback would have to somewhat in doubt.

Now understand what I typed. I did not say buybacks were illegal. I did not say they were not useful, were not even helpful.

I asked did they manipulate the market.

It's not manipulation because manipulation entails misinformation or insider trading.
no, not necessarily.
When a company buys back stock it's just the opposite of a split. In both instances, the market is informed of the buyback/split before it is done.
 
There are many companies that are borrowing money to buy back stocks. Stocks are a liability for a corporation. But not the market value of the stock, but the price that they sold the original stock for. You can write down the liability of the stock on a last sold basis, but you are still probably paying much more for the stock on the open market than you carried on the books as the value of the stock as a liability.
 
If a company had lots of wonderful growth projects I would expect the stock to go up more by doing lots of wonderful growth projects.

Sure, but it wouldn't go up fast enough for the ceo's to hit their eps or roe benchmarks for their bonuses.

But I'm sure such mundane things never enter into the thinking of a master of the universe.
 
Back
Top Bottom