Stock buybacks

[NPT]

Biden is wanting to increase taxes on stock buybacks. I'm normally not a person wanting to increase taxes but in this case I'll have to agree with their reasoning. Some argue that it's showing that the management has confidence in the company. While there may be some of that I think a lot of it is to prop up the stock price or make it go up so the management can make more money.

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Biden is wanting to increase taxes on stock buybacks. I'm normally not a person wanting to increase taxes but in this case I'll have to agree with their reasoning. Some argue that it's showing that the management has confidence in the company. While there may be some of that I think a lot of it is to prop up the stock price or make it go up so the management can make more money.

MSN

www.msn.com

I think we might want to revisit making buybacks illegal, which they were until about '82. As you suggest, it is often an accounting trick to get stock prices to hit bonus goals for leadership. Failing making them illegal, taxing works as a substitution.

 

[snarlcakes]

Biden is wanting to increase taxes on stock buybacks. I'm normally not a person wanting to increase taxes but in this case I'll have to agree with their reasoning. Some argue that it's showing that the management has confidence in the company. While there may be some of that I think a lot of it is to prop up the stock price or make it go up so the management can make more money.

MSN

www.msn.com

It's ok for the management to want a higher stock price. It benefits shareholders. Why would you not want a stock you are holding to be higher? I'd much rather have the CEO of the company making decisions, rather than politicians. The options they have are stock buybacks, dividends, investing in R/D, company acquisitions, or holding cash (which depreciates at 5-7% a year). Increasing the taxes are just going to change how companies allocate money (which won't be the most beneficial to shareholders) and push them further down the risk curve.

 

[NPT]

It's ok for the management to want a higher stock price. It benefits shareholders. Why would you not want a stock you are holding to be higher? I'd much rather have the CEO of the company making decisions, rather than politicians. The options they have are stock buybacks, dividends, investing in R/D, company acquisitions, or holding cash (which depreciates at 5-7% a year). Increasing the taxes are just going to change how companies allocate money (which won't be the most beneficial to shareholders) and push them further down the risk curve.

Stock price should be based on company performance and not tricks to make it go higher. They can always pay a dividend if they want to benefit shareholders.

Remember the older days the CEOs etc got a bunch of stock options which management always said creates an incentive for them to try to make the company do well but then along came 2008 and most stock options were below water so they started giving them restricted stock.

 

[Cortez88]

It's ok for the management to want a higher stock price. It benefits shareholders. Why would you not want a stock you are holding to be higher? I'd much rather have the CEO of the company making decisions, rather than politicians. The options they have are stock buybacks, dividends, investing in R/D, company acquisitions, or holding cash (which depreciates at 5-7% a year). Increasing the taxes are just going to change how companies allocate money (which won't be the most beneficial to shareholders) and push them further down the risk curve.

Maybe incentivizing companies to reinvest gains into R&D, capital projects, and its employees is the goal. That sounds reasonable to me.

 

[snarlcakes]

Stock price should be based on company performance and not tricks to make it go higher. They can always pay a dividend if they want to benefit shareholders.

Remember the older days the CEOs etc got a bunch of stock options which management always said creates an incentive for them to try to make the company do well but then along came 2008 and most stock options were below water so they started giving them restricted stock.

I don't consider it tricks to make it go higher. They are buying shares of their company because they think their stock is cheap and it's the best use of capital. Also, the money is coming from the companies profits, which is based on their performance.

 

[snarlcakes]

Maybe incentivizing companies to reinvest gains into R&D, capital projects, and its employees is the goal. That sounds reasonable to me.

They already are incentivized to do those things.

 

[TDHoosier]

I don't consider it tricks to make it go higher. They are buying shares of their companies because they think their stock is cheap and it's the best use of capital. Also, the money is coming from the companies profits, which is based on their performance.

I have to agree how can we tell a company how to spend their capital? Some companies also like to be in control of the majority of shares in order to maintain say over the future of the company.

If a company did this in order to sell high, which would be one reason to make "inflate" then they are selling to some really dumb investors/buyers.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Stock price should be based on company performance and not tricks to make it go higher. They can always pay a dividend if they want to benefit shareholders.

What you are really concerned about is poor executive compensation practices, not the act of share repurchases.

The flaws in some of the thinking in this thread are:

• Company performance isn't a be all and end all for stock/share price
• Dividends are inherently just as bad of a use of cash and far less tax efficient - which is why buybacks became the preferred method to provide additional shareholder returns

Buybacks are clearly a more tax-efficient way to return capital to shareholders because the investor doesn't incur any additional tax on the buyback sale process. Tax is only applicable on the actual sale of shares, whereas dividends attract tax in the range of 15% to 20%.

Dividend vs Share Buyback/Repurchase

Shareholders invest in publicly traded companies for capital appreciation and income. There are two main ways in which a company returns profits to its shareholders

corporatefinanceinstitute.com

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Maybe incentivizing companies to reinvest gains into R&D, capital projects, and its employees is the goal. That sounds reasonable to me.

We've had a period of putrid growth post-financial crisis which made companies: 1) complacent b/c even though cash was yielding minimal returns, inflation was not a concern, and 2) low growth and increased risk aversion resulting from behavior of prior companies ruined corporate financial forecasting and return analyses

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

I think we might want to revisit making buybacks illegal, which they were until about '82. As you suggest, it is often an accounting trick to get stock prices to hit bonus goals for leadership. Failing making them illegal, taxing works as a substitution.

So the government should be mandating how companies use their profits/cash flow?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

So the government should be mandating how companies use their profits/cash flow?

It was illegal until 1982, wasn't it? That seems to correspond to when CEO pay totally jumped the rails.

 

[NPT]

What you are really concerned about is poor executive compensation practices, not the act of share repurchases.

The flaws in some of the thinking in this thread are:

• Company performance isn't a be all and end all for stock/share price
• Dividends are inherently just as bad of a use of cash and far less tax efficient - which is why buybacks became the preferred method to provide additional shareholder returns

Buybacks are clearly a more tax-efficient way to return capital to shareholders because the investor doesn't incur any additional tax on the buyback sale process. Tax is only applicable on the actual sale of shares, whereas dividends attract tax in the range of 15% to 20%.

Dividend vs Share Buyback/Repurchase

Shareholders invest in publicly traded companies for capital appreciation and income. There are two main ways in which a company returns profits to its shareholders

corporatefinanceinstitute.com

I agree with most of that with one exception. While buybacks are more tax efficient when I get a dividend check I have the cash in hand and don't have to hope the stock goes up eventually (which it probably will) or hold it for several years before I reap the benefit of the buyback.

 

[UncleMark]

I don't consider it tricks to make it go higher. They are buying shares of their company because they think their stock is cheap and it's the best use of capital. Also, the money is coming from the companies profits, which is based on their performance.

I know capitalism is all about those with the capital, but what about those who actually produce the wealth once the capital is invested?

 

[snarlcakes]

I know capitalism is all about those with the capital, but what about those who actually produce the wealth once the capital is invested?

Capitalism isn’t all about those with capital. It’s beneficial to everyone. Especially, the poor.

To answer your question people are paid for the work and production they do.

 

[UncleMark]

Capitalism isn’t all about those with capital. It’s beneficial to everyone. Especially, the poor.

To answer your question people are paid for the work and production they do.

Sure they do. Especially the CEOs.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Buybacks are symptoms of the overall problem, this quarter and only this quarter matters to Americans. Long term investment, who needs that crap.

Why Stock Buybacks Are Dangerous for the Economy

Even as the United States continues to experience its longest economic expansion since World War II, concern is growing that soaring corporate debt will make the economy susceptible to a contraction that could get out of control. The root cause of this concern is the trillions of dollars that...

hbr.org

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

It was illegal until 1982, wasn't it? That seems to correspond to when CEO pay totally jumped the rails.

have you even looked at market returns? Here's the DJIA (S&P doesn't have enough longevity):

Look at what has happened post 1982. It isn't just stock/share buybacks. We've been in an unprecedented long-term uptrend, driven by a comeconomic factors, demographics, etc.

Executive compensation needs to be fixed in the boardroom, not by a bunch of career political know-nothings in the legislative or executive branch.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Buybacks are symptoms of the overall problem, this quarter and only this quarter matters to Americans. Long term investment, who needs that crap.

Why Stock Buybacks Are Dangerous for the Economy

Even as the United States continues to experience its longest economic expansion since World War II, concern is growing that soaring corporate debt will make the economy susceptible to a contraction that could get out of control. The root cause of this concern is the trillions of dollars that...

hbr.org

And who's driving that greed Marvin? It isn't CEOs.

It's investors. Insitutions and individuals alike have no patience or willigness to wait five years to see a return. More often than not, the longer an investment remains, the lower its return (as measured by IRR).

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

I know capitalism is all about those with the capital, but what about those who actually produce the wealth once the capital is invested?

Start a business Mark. It's the easiest it has ever been per Howard Schlutz.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

have you even looked at market returns? Here's the DJIA (S&P doesn't have enough longevity):

Look at what has happened post 1982. It isn't just stock/share buybacks. We've been in an unprecedented long-term uptrend, driven by a comeconomic factors, demographics, etc.

Executive compensation needs to be fixed in the boardroom, not by a bunch of career political know-nothings in the legislative or executive branch.

Unless those know nothing legislators can use it to make under the table profits for themselves. But that would never happen.

 

[UncleMark]

Start a business Mark. It's the easiest it has ever been per Howard Schlutz.

Gimme some capital.

 

[TomEric4756]

Stock price should be based on company performance and not tricks to make it go higher. They can always pay a dividend if they want to benefit shareholders.

Remember the older days the CEOs etc got a bunch of stock options which management always said creates an incentive for them to try to make the company do well but then along came 2008 and most stock options were below water so they started giving them restricted stock.

Overall. The value of a stock should represent the net present value of future earnings. Deviations from this price are speculations that that future earnings are better or worse than the unknowable future earnings.

Dividends get taxed as ordinary income. Stock prices get taxed at capital gain rates when held more than a year. The proposal seeks to reduce capital gains by taxing one of the means a firm can deliver them. I believe it is a tax arbitrage countermeasure.

This countermeasure penalizes pension plan recipients, IRA and 401K holders by reducing the capital gains of the stocks held. Right at the time when saving more to address the lower rates of return is needed, saving more has been made all the harder by the ravages of inflation.

I think this is a net negative in the long run. I expect it to be panned by the usual “growth centric“ economists.

BTW, I’m not a fan of excess stock buy backs … I‘d rather see management innovate their business models with the cash, myself, to maximize my long term return.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Gimme some capital.

I'm already funding your future, are you really going to hit me up for more?

 

[UncleMark]

I'm already funding your future, are you really going to hit me up for more?

Did I get around to thanking you for the raise this year? It was a damn nice one.

 

[DANC]

I know capitalism is all about those with the capital, but what about those who actually produce the wealth once the capital is invested?

How about whoever owns the company - stockholders - decide what to be able to do with their own company?

All this because Democrats cater to the media by claiming to be against obscene executive compensation while getting rich off a bogus book deal on a book nobody buys. Or their family gets rich peddling influence.

Can't you see what's going on here?

 

[mrhighlife]

Just raise the income tax rate on the top 1% back to where Eisenhower(a true conservative) had it and be done with it. Quit f---ing around.

As for stocks. Just ban all Congress from trading. Period.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

And who's driving that greed Marvin? It isn't CEOs.

It's investors. Insitutions and individuals alike have no patience or willigness to wait five years to see a return. More often than not, the longer an investment remains, the lower its return (as measured by IRR).

Did you see this in the HBR article:

In fact, in 2018, only 43% of companies in the S&P 500 Index recorded any R&D expenses, with just 38 companies accounting for 75% of the R&D spending of all 500 companies. Whether or not a firm spends on R&D, all companies have to invest broadly and deeply in the productive capabilities of their employees in order to remain competitive in global markets.​

In another thread I took Intel to task for blowing a huge lead in chip capability putting American security at risk. Intel has bought back a lot of stock. One has to wonder if their priorities were right.

Intel Stock Buybacks (Quarterly)

In depth view into Intel Stock Buybacks (Quarterly) including historical data from 1972, charts and stats.

ycharts.com

What jobs are going to be in America when China becomes the world innovator?

I don't disagree that Americans have become stupid crazy with demanding immediate growth. Sometimes we have to be saved from ourselves.

I need to read the book on Jack Welch, it discussed how he ballooned CEO compensation while destroying GE by focusing on money games to grow. It turns out making profit by not producing but by paper tricks has limits, which GE hit hard. It seems to me we are better off with corporations that produce products of value and not trying to create money through accounting games, ala GE or Enron.

 

[NPT]

Dividends get taxed as ordinary income.

That's not true. It's according to your tax bracket but in most cases dividends are taxed at a lower rate.

I don't disagree that Americans have become stupid crazy with demanding immediate growth. Sometimes we have to be saved from ourselves.

That is so true, Of course some of us don't have a lot of years to wait. I was reading an article the other day about Buffett buying Coke stock back in the 80s for $3.24/share and he now gets a dividend every year that is more than half of that. Most people (including me sometimes) chase the hottest stock but for the average person that's not a good idea.

I'm not sure any of the financial places that rate stocks are any better than flipping a coin. You can find so many stocks where one place will rate it as a strong buy and go to another place and they will rate the same stock as a sell or hold.

 

[NPT]

Executive compensation needs to be fixed in the boardroom, not by a bunch of career political know-nothings in the legislative or executive branch.

I agree with that except it will never happen because I think most boards are like a "good ol boys" club where they all sit on each other's boards and say you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

That's not true. It's according to your tax bracket but in most cases dividends are taxed at a lower rate.


That is so true, Of course some of us don't have a lot of years to wait. I was reading an article the other day about Buffett buying Coke stock back in the 80s for $3.24/share and he now gets a dividend every year that is more than half of that. Most people (including me sometimes) chase the hottest stock but for the average person that's not a good idea.

I'm not sure any of the financial places that rate stocks are any better than flipping a coin. You can find so many stocks where one place will rate it as a strong buy and go to another place and they will rate the same stock as a sell or hold.

I keep mentioning Taleb, but he really takes stock trading to task. He says the firms involved are always just looking for the hot hand, and that person becomes a guru just when their luck of calling heads runs out and they fade away into oblivion (he says they usually go to sell expensive cars). He speaks of a trader that has for a number of years beaten the market, but he only beats it by a little. Firms don't like him, he never gets pushed to the top. The guy doesn't take the big risks, he's content to hit singles. So where the hot hands are given house money, this guy never is.

Taleb never uses the term "casino economy", but it is what we built. The idea that large risks are where its at. We are making money through bets, through financial games. We aren't investing in building products or even ideas. The collapse of 2008 was from casino thinking. Let it ride.

We have all become drunk on these rates of return, but we don't think to ask the question if they are sustainable.

Taleb isn't even big on Buffett, he says Buffett's success is inside the range of what random chance would allow. He said the only investor he's seen that falls outside what randomness would account for is Soros. I know that irritates people. Taleb says at the national level he Libertarian, at the state level a Republican, and at the local level a Democrat. So that isn't exactly the mindset of someone who just loves Soros' politics. And thinking of it, that breakdown makes a lot of sense for someone who wants to see problems addressed but addressed at the local level. Not that I agree necessarily, just I understand the thinking.

 

[NPT]

I keep mentioning Taleb, but he really takes stock trading to task. He says the firms involved are always just looking for the hot hand, and that person becomes a guru just when their luck of calling heads runs out and they fade away into oblivion (he says they usually go to sell expensive cars). He speaks of a trader that has for a number of years beaten the market, but he only beats it by a little. Firms don't like him, he never gets pushed to the top. The guy doesn't take the big risks, he's content to hit singles. So where the hot hands are given house money, this guy never is.

Taleb never uses the term "casino economy", but it is what we built. The idea that large risks are where its at. We are making money through bets, through financial games. We aren't investing in building products or even ideas. The collapse of 2008 was from casino thinking. Let it ride.

We have all become drunk on these rates of return, but we don't think to ask the question if they are sustainable.

Taleb isn't even big on Buffett, he says Buffett's success is inside the range of what random chance would allow. He said the only investor he's seen that falls outside what randomness would account for is Soros. I know that irritates people. Taleb says at the national level he Libertarian, at the state level a Republican, and at the local level a Democrat. So that isn't exactly the mindset of someone who just loves Soros' politics. And thinking of it, that breakdown makes a lot of sense for someone who wants to see problems addressed but addressed at the local level. Not that I agree necessarily, just I understand the thinking.

It's hard to beat the market. Most people would be better off to just buy a few index funds or ETFs. When you think about it all these people trying to beat the market are the market.

A few lines from an article I read:
The fact is, most people who are paid to deliver higher returns than the stock market as a whole can’t do it. Data from the S&P Dow Jones Indices shows 60% of large-cap equity fund managers underperformed the S&P 500 in 2020.

It was the 11th straight year the majority of fund managers lost to the market.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

I agree with most of that with one exception. While buybacks are more tax efficient when I get a dividend check I have the cash in hand and don't have to hope the stock goes up eventually (which it probably will) or hold it for several years before I reap the benefit of the buyback.

Technically, the way the buybacks work, it creates somewhat of an immediate benefit, but your point makes sense in that it's not a physical distribution of cash and requires the shareholder to sell some stock to realize the benefit.

I wonder what the percentage of investors that reinvest their dividends are though vs. those that actually clip the coupons and reinvest them in something else?

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Did you see this in the HBR article:

In fact, in 2018, only 43% of companies in the S&P 500 Index recorded any R&D expenses, with just 38 companies accounting for 75% of the R&D spending of all 500 companies. Whether or not a firm spends on R&D, all companies have to invest broadly and deeply in the productive capabilities of their employees in order to remain competitive in global markets.

On the surface that doesn't look good, but have you stopped to think about how important that actually is? For instance, I'll cherry pick two companies for example:

• Allstate Corp - large insurance carrier

Why would Allstate really be recording R&D expense? Allstate likely doesn't do much R&D as it isn't necessary nor a core competency. If Allstate wants to gain or use Fintech, it likely enters into licenses with innovative, R&D-laden software and technology companies. Or, if it really wants to differentiate, it could potentially acquire that business and there would be a negigible amount of go-forward R&D.

• Accenture - multinational consulting firm

Accenture (former Arthur Andersen consulting arm) focuses primarily on IT consulting and secondarily on other adjacent consulting areas (operations, management, etc.). It similarly doesn't record any R&D expense because it's a business that deploys functional experts to other firms.

It seems like a relevant, but imperfect way to look at the things. In other words, I'd much rather see a use of a combination of R&D PLUS capital expenditures, which also demonstrate reinvestment in the company and cover a much broader set of participants and costs.

In another thread I took Intel to task for blowing a huge lead in chip capability putting American security at risk. Intel has bought back a lot of stock. One has to wonder if their priorities were right.

Seems a bit unfair to singularly blame a sole company for this. I saw Steven Rattner's doomsday OpEd, but Taiwan Semicon is already building one of the largest factories in the world to produce chips in Phoenix metro. Do we care what companies are producing these, so long as security and access is on par? In other words, how is this different from Japanese or German cars being made in South Carolina or Tennessee?

I need to read the book on Jack Welch, it discussed how he ballooned CEO compensation while destroying GE by focusing on money games to grow. It turns out making profit by not producing but by paper tricks has limits, which GE hit hard. It seems to me we are better off with corporations that produce products of value and not trying to create money through accounting games, ala GE or Enron.

LOL, reading a one-sided accusatory book doesn't seem like it's going to give you any new perspective, only solidify your existing beliefs. There's several critical reviews out there on it, notably:

Did Jack Welch Blow Up the Business World?

A new book about former GE CEO Jack Welch blames him for shareholder capitalism, but there were other factors at play.

sloanreview.mit.edu

What jobs are going to be in America when China becomes the world innovator?

I don't disagree that Americans have become stupid crazy with demanding immediate growth. Sometimes we have to be saved from ourselves.

Again, you should go to China. If you think they are innovative, watch them try and make a Cheeseburger without Cheese. Or look at their poorly made, reverse engineered bus engines that are knock offs of Southern IN darling Cummins. Their people still defecate in holes in the ground.

I'm not interested in giving them credit until they've earned it and they are a long ways away from that. India has a much more innovative culture than China.

Also, I'm not sure the investor demands are unique to America these days. Sure, it originated here, but do you really think CEOs in Germany, Japan, etc. have a long leash these days? Are investor expectations really that different?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

On the surface that doesn't look good, but have you stopped to think about how important that actually is? For instance, I'll cherry pick two companies for example:

• Allstate Corp - large insurance carrier

Why would Allstate really be recording R&D expense? Allstate likely doesn't do much R&D as it isn't necessary nor a core competency. If Allstate wants to gain or use Fintech, it likely enters into licenses with innovative, R&D-laden software and technology companies. Or, if it really wants to differentiate, it could potentially acquire that business and there would be a negigible amount of go-forward R&D.

• Accenture - multinational consulting firm

Accenture (former Arthur Andersen consulting arm) focuses primarily on IT consulting and secondarily on other adjacent consulting areas (operations, management, etc.). It similarly doesn't record any R&D expense because it's a business that deploys functional experts to other firms.

It seems like a relevant, but imperfect way to look at the things. In other words, I'd much rather see a use of a combination of R&D PLUS capital expenditures, which also demonstrate reinvestment in the company and cover a much broader set of participants and costs.



Seems a bit unfair to singularly blame a sole company for this. I saw Steven Rattner's doomsday OpEd, but Taiwan Semicon is already building one of the largest factories in the world to produce chips in Phoenix metro. Do we care what companies are producing these, so long as security and access is on par? In other words, how is this different from Japanese or German cars being made in South Carolina or Tennessee?



LOL, reading a one-sided accusatory book doesn't seem like it's going to give you any new perspective, only solidify your existing beliefs. There's several critical reviews out there on it, notably:

Did Jack Welch Blow Up the Business World?

A new book about former GE CEO Jack Welch blames him for shareholder capitalism, but there were other factors at play.

sloanreview.mit.edu

Again, you should go to China. If you think they are innovative, watch them try and make a Cheeseburger without Cheese. Or look at their poorly made, reverse engineered bus engines that are knock offs of Southern IN darling Cummins. Their people still defecate in holes in the ground.

I'm not interested in giving them credit until they've earned it and they are a long ways away from that. India has a much more innovative culture than China.

Also, I'm not sure the investor demands are unique to America these days. Sure, it originated here, but do you really think CEOs in Germany, Japan, etc. have a long leash these days? Are investor expectations really that different?

But notice your link on Welch quotes Welch himself as saying shareholder capitalism is the "dumbest idea in the world". Isn't that in effect what we are discussing, business only has an obligation to profit shareholders (as opposed to stakeholder capitalism or consumer capitalism). Buybacks are an artifact of shareholder capitalism. Do buybacks help employees? Does they help R&D? Does they help the consumer?

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

But notice your link on Welch quotes Welch himself as saying shareholder capitalism is the "dumbest idea in the world". Isn't that in effect what we are discussing, business only has an obligation to profit shareholders (as opposed to stakeholder capitalism or consumer capitalism). Buybacks are an artifact of shareholder capitalism. Do buybacks help employees? Does they help R&D? Does they help the consumer?

Welch isn't connecting the dots. If executive compensation (and performance measurement) gets adjusted and more importantly, the single driver of all of this - investor expectations - changes, that would solve some of those problems which are longer-term in nature.

Believing that government legislation or mandates can solve such a complex and interelated is naive, particularly if you look at how clueless and ignorant our politicians are about business in general, let alone complexities within the private sector.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Welch isn't connecting the dots. If executive compensation (and performance measurement) gets adjusted and more importantly, the single driver of all of this - investor expectations - changes, that would solve some of those problems which are longer-term in nature.

Believing that government legislation or mandates can solve such a complex and interelated is naive, particularly if you look at how clueless and ignorant our politicians are about business in general, let alone complexities within the private sector.

Is there any sign that business believes there is a problem with something like CEO compensation, or perhaps under-investment in R&D? Am I wrong that executives largely prioritize the current quarter over all else?

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Is there any sign that business believes there is a problem with something like CEO compensation, or perhaps under-investment in R&D? Am I wrong that executives largely prioritize the current quarter over all else?

You are only seeing business from the lens of the largest public companies, which does not always represent what you see with middle market and smaller companies.

And again, you are blaming executives for issues created by investors and perhaps, society itself. How is it any different than the coach who gets canned after one year? Expectations are for performance immediately.

I don't have a solution or fix, but you are blaming the executives for making decisions based on and to appease the underlying problem.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

You are only seeing business from the lens of the largest public companies, which does not always represent what you see with middle market and smaller companies.

And again, you are blaming executives for issues created by investors and perhaps, society itself. How is it any different than the coach who gets canned after one year? Expectations are for performance immediately.

I don't have a solution or fix, but you are blaming the executives for making decisions based on and to appease the underlying problem.

I recall an interview with Bezos during early Amazon. Bezos was under great pressure to ratchet up profits sooner than he wanted. He refused, he wanted to build Amazon into the behemoth we all now know. It takes vision, and a spine.

 

[DANC]

I recall an interview with Bezos during early Amazon. Bezos was under great pressure to ratchet up profits sooner than he wanted. He refused, he wanted to build Amazon into the behemoth we all now know. It takes vision, and a spine.

The difference is, you want the government to intervene and tell companies how to use their profits.