Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Corporate Tax Cuts Going to Stock Buybacks

  1. #1

    Corporate Tax Cuts Going to Stock Buybacks

    Still early on, but indications are that not much of the tax breaks are going to higher wages.

    https://www.salon.com/2018/02/10/tru...oozle_partner/

    Trump’s promise that corporations will use his giant new tax cut to make new investments and raise workers’ wages is proving to be about as truthful as his promise to release his tax returns.

    The results are coming in, and guess what? Almost all the extra money is going into stock buybacks. Since the tax cut became law, buy-backs have surged to $88.6 billion. That’s more than double the amount of buybacks in the same period last year, according to data provided by Birinyi Associates.

    Compare this to the paltry $2.5 billion of employee bonuses corporations say they’ll dispense in response to the tax law, and you see the bonuses for what they are — a small fig leaf to disguise the big buybacks.

    If anything, the current tumult in the stock market will fuel even more buybacks.

    Stock buybacks are corporate purchases of their own shares of stock. Corporations do this to artificially prop up their share prices.

    Buybacks are the corporate equivalent of steroids. They may make shareholders feel better than otherwise, but nothing really changes.

    Money spent on buybacks isn’t reinvested in new equipment, research, or factories. Buybacks don’t add jobs or raise wages. They don’t increase productivity. They don’t grow the American economy.

    Yet CEOs love buybacks because most CEO pay is now in shares of stock and stock options rather than cash. So when share prices go up, executives reap a bonanza.


    At the same time, the value of CEO pay from previous years also rises, in what amounts to a retroactive (and off the books) pay increase – on top of their already humongous compensation packages.

    Big investors also love buybacks because they increase the value of their stock portfolios. Now that the richest 10 percent of Americans own 84 percent of all shares of stock (up from 77 percent at the turn of the century), this means even more wealth at the top.

    Buybacks used to be illegal. The Securities and Exchange considered them unlawful means of manipulating stock prices, in violation of the Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934.

    In those days, the typical corporation put about half its profits into research and development, plant and equipment, worker retraining, additional jobs, and higher wages.

    But under Ronald Reagan, who rhapsodized about the “magic of the market,” the SEC legalized buybacks.

    After that, buybacks took off. Just in the past decade, 94 percent of corporate profits have been devoted to buybacks and dividends, according to researchers at the Academic-Industry Research Network.

    Last year, big American corporations spent a record $780 billion buying back their shares of stock.

    And that was before the new tax law.

    Put another way, the new tax law is giving America’s wealthy not one but two big windfalls: They stand to gain the most from the tax cuts for individuals, and they’re the big winners from the tax cuts for corporations.

    This isn’t just unfair. It’s also bad for the economy as a whole. Corporations don’t invest because they get tax cuts. They invest because they expect that customers will buy more of their goods and services.

    This brings us to the underlying problem. Companies haven’t been investing — and have been using their profits to buy back their stock instead — because they doubt their investments will pay off in additional sales.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Oh good, another myth to dismantle

    The popular press is replete with commentary seeking to damn the behavior of corporate managers in handing free cash flow back into the hands of shareholders. These criticisms are often, even regularly, without merit (at least merit that can be demonstrated), sometimes glaringly so. Aggregate share repurchase activity has not been at historical highs when measured properly, and when netted against debt issuance is almost a non-event, does not mechanically create earnings (EPS) growth, does not stifle aggregate investment activity, and has not been the primary cause for recent stock market strength. These myths should be discarded.
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=3082460

    Warren Buffett endorses share buybacks

    https://www.ft.com/content/0a9bda54-...8-3700c5664d30



    Quote Originally Posted by Trash Left Wing Site
    Buybacks used to be illegal. The Securities and Exchange considered them unlawful means of manipulating stock prices, in violation of the Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934.

    In those days, the typical corporation put about half its profits into research and development, plant and equipment, worker retraining, additional jobs, and higher wages.

    But under Ronald Reagan, who rhapsodized about the “magic of the market,” the SEC legalized buybacks.
    That's just wrong. Companies were buying back stock long before Ronald Reagan was in office. Should look up Henry Singleton.
    Last edited by Krugminator2; 02-10-2018 at 02:19 PM.

  4. #3
    Paper says that stock buybacks are not the primary mover of the entire stock market. It does not say that companies are not using them instead of giving wage increases to workers.

    and has not been the primary cause for recent stock market strength
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 02-10-2018 at 03:36 PM.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Paper says that stock buybacks are not the primary mover of the entire stock market. It does not say that companies are not using them instead of giving wage increases to workers.
    Your article says it though and you thought it important enough to bold it. Share buybacks do increase earnings and share price but the paper I posted says it is greatly exaggerated.
    Last edited by Krugminator2; 02-10-2018 at 03:33 PM.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Oh good, another myth to dismantle



    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=3082460

    Warren Buffett endorses share buybacks

    https://www.ft.com/content/0a9bda54-...8-3700c5664d30


    That's just wrong. Companies were buying back stock long before Ronald Reagan was in office. Should look up Henry Singleton.
    They were, but not to the extent they do today.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/buybacks-dividends

    Big stock buybacks are a relatively new development. As recently as the 1970s, they were effectively banned in the U.S., amid concerns that executives would use them to manipulate share prices. That changed in the 1980s. Against the backdrop of President Ronald Reagan’s deregulatory drive, restrictions on buybacks were loosened and a culture of “shareholder value” was born. The idea was that the market should act as a disciplining force: Executives who couldn’t find attractive projects should give money back to investors, who would put it to better use. A wave of hostile takeovers made sitting on a pile of cash seem like a dangerous thing to do. And managers’ bonuses were increasingly tied to stock performance, to align their incentives with those of shareholders. Suddenly, buybacks boomed, often paid for by increased borrowing. In the new worldview, this was good: Tax breaks made debt a cheaper form of financing, and the need to make regular interest payments could focus executives’ minds on generating more cash. Over the next few decades, the stock market’s perceived function — raising money for business ventures — was turned on its head, as stocks became a vehicle largely for returning money to shareholders.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 02-10-2018 at 03:44 PM.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    They were, but not to the extent they do today.

    If I had to guess, I would bet it has something to do with dividends being an inefficient way of giving money back to paying shareholders.

    Berkshire Hathaway has never paid a dividend but does aggressively buyback shares when they think it is appropriate. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/ans...y-dividend.asp


    And left unquestioned is why workers should get a high percentage of a corporate tax cut. If you cut corporate taxes, the taxes still get paid in a different form. Either the company pays a dividend, reinvests in some form (including buybacks) for capital gains, or pays workers more. All three of those things are taxable. Workers are still getting more than they otherwise would have with the tax cut.
    Last edited by Krugminator2; 02-10-2018 at 04:28 PM.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    If I had to guess, I would bet it has something to do with dividends being an inefficient way of giving money back to paying shareholders.

    Berkshire Hathaway has never paid a dividend but does aggressively buyback shares when they think it is appropriate. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/ans...y-dividend.asp


    And left unquestioned is why workers should get a high percentage of a corporate tax cut. If you cut corporate taxes, the taxes still get paid in a different form. Either the company pays a dividend, reinvests in some form (including buybacks) for capital gains, or pays workers more. All three of those things are taxable. Workers are still getting more than they otherwise would have with the tax cut.

    A good reason for employees to bargain for profit-sharing as part of their compensation.
    Pfizer Macht Frei!

    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.


    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    A good reason for employees to bargain for profit-sharing as part of their compensation.
    I also once worked for a Co that let you buy shares pre tax out of your salary .



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    There was an anecdotal story floating around a few weeks ago that a large CEO/executive forum was held and the MC asked for a show of hands of how many were planning on using the repatriation of overseas funds and corporate tax cuts to hire more, raise wages, bonuses, etc. Apparently only about 1 in 5 raised a hand. Fwiw.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul

    "We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    There was an anecdotal story floating around a few weeks ago that a large CEO/executive forum was held and the MC asked for a show of hands of how many were planning on using the repatriation of overseas funds and corporate tax cuts to hire more, raise wages, bonuses, etc. Apparently only about 1 in 5 raised a hand. Fwiw.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    There was an anecdotal story floating around a few weeks ago that a large CEO/executive forum was held and the MC asked for a show of hands of how many were planning on using the repatriation of overseas funds and corporate tax cuts to hire more, raise wages, bonuses, etc. Apparently only about 1 in 5 raised a hand. Fwiw.
    1 in 5 is better than one and nothing. And nothing is better than increasingly moving production elsewhere.



Similar Threads

  1. Corporate Share Buybacks: How Timely Are They?
    By TaftFan in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-27-2013, 02:13 PM
  2. The Folly in Becoming a Corporate Stock Holder
    By Uncle Emanuel Watkins in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 07-08-2010, 03:11 PM
  3. $1m mortgage buybacks seen
    By bobbyw24 in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-28-2009, 04:43 AM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-20-2008, 12:17 PM
  5. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-02-2007, 11:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •