Results 1 to 20 of 516

Thread: In The USA: the Next Revolution

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #11
    Council Member tequila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,665

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Presley Cannady View Post
    Which is precisely what it does. What seems to be lost on some is the notion that risk assessment and determining productive opportunities is not an exercise in self-evident pontificating.
    Please advise me how the inflation and subsequent destruction of the RMBS derivatives market was a precise assessment of risk and an outstanding allocation of capital to productive purpose.

    Because we've produced the $1.6 quadrillion line of credit that sustains low unemployment and multi-trillion dollar GDPs.
    Really? How did you produce that? And why did you get so bad at producing it since 2008?

    As for massive credit lines, I think Ben Bernanke has a lot more to do with that than you.

    Only if we peg the definition of "sustainability" to either zero volatility or some arbitrary degree of it.
    Do you think that the events of 2008 or 2011 constitute a sustainable environment?

    Apropos:

    Rash to Some, Stock Buybacks are on the Rise

    When Pfizer cut its research budget this year and laid off 1,100 employees, it was not because the company needed to save money.

    In fact, the drug maker had so much cash left over, it decided to buy back an additional $5 billion worth of stock on top of the $4 billion already earmarked for repurchases in 2011 and beyond.

    The moves, announced on the same day, might seem at odds with each other, but they represent an increasingly common pattern among American corporations, which are sitting on record amounts of cash but insist that growth opportunities are hard to find.

    The result is that at a time when the nation is looking for ways to battle unemployment, big companies are creating fewer jobs, and critics say they are neglecting to lay the foundation for future growth by expanding into new businesses or building new plants.

    What is more, share buybacks have not fulfilled their stated purpose of rewarding investors over the last decade, experts say. “It’s a symptom of a deeper problem, which is a lack of investment in the long term,” said William W. George, a Harvard Business School professor and former chief executive of Medtronic, a medical technology company. “If we’re not investing in research, innovation and entrepreneurship, we’re going to be a slow-growth country for a decade ...”

    The principle behind buybacks is simple. With fewer shares in circulation, earnings per share can rise smartly even if the company’s underlying growth is lackluster. In many cases, like that of the medical device maker Zimmer Holdings, executives are able to meet goals for profit growth and earn bigger bonuses despite poor stock performance.

    ...

    In addition, executives, who are often large shareholders, stand to benefit from even a small, short-term jump in stock prices.

    Earlier this month, Pfizer increased its estimate for stock repurchases this year to between $7 billion and $9 billion — essentially spending in one year nearly all of the money it set aside in February for multiyear buybacks. There has been a steady drumbeat of other companies laying off workers even as they have disclosed plans to buy back more stock. On June 23, Campbell Soup said it would buy back $1 billion in stock; five days later it announced plans to eliminate 770 jobs. Hewlett-Packard announced a $10 billion stock repurchase in July, and jettisoned 500 jobs in September after it discontinued its TouchPad and smartphone product lines ...

    Powered by huge stock buybacks — the company bought $500 million worth of its own shares last year, more than twice what it spent on research and development — Zimmer posted earnings growth of 10 percent a share, even though operating income and revenue grew by less than 5 percent in 2010.

    That helped its senior management, including the chief executive, David C. Dvorak, collect millions in cash and stock incentive payments by meeting earnings-per-share goals. For example, 50 percent of Mr. Dvorak’s $1.03 million cash bonus was tied to achieving per-share earnings of $4.28 in 2010. The company earned $4.33, but without the share repurchases the company would have made $4 to $4.10 a share ...
    Last edited by tequila; 11-23-2011 at 09:37 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. Evolution Vs. Revolution
    By Rob Thornton in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-15-2010, 08:38 PM
  2. Revolutionary Patterns
    By TROUFION in forum Historians
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-25-2007, 04:27 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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