LyrArc Article Gist
This NYT editorial brings up the 14-19% tax proposed by U.S. president Obama for overseas profits of U.S. companies. The 5.25% tax in 2005 under the Bush administration for repatriation of about $300 billion did not result in a positive experience says NYT, as most of the money went into dividend payments, share buybacks, and severance for laid off employees. It led to a new surge in unrepatriated profits in the expectation of another tax holiday of this type. A Senate investigation in 2013 showed Apple has $100 billion in Ireland with no tax paid on much of this amount, as cited here. The NYT says Apple shows arrogance in thinking the EU Commission which has taken up cases on tax avoidance of Fiat, Starbucks, Amazon, BASF, would not look at Apple in Ireland. It calls tax deferral on overseas profits as the root of the problem, as it allowed companies initially to look at investment opportunities, but now simply to stash the money abroad till some better tax arrangement can be achieved with U.S. Treasury. The Obama administration proposal was to immediately tax existing profits at 14%, whether repatriated or not, and thereafter at 19% on profits moved offshore. The NYT is in favor of ending corporate tax deferral altogether, and applying taxes on profits in the same year they are made.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The corporate share buybacks announced by U.S. companies in the last 3 months now exceed $200 billion, more than double than in 2017, according to a WSJ analysis. This includes Cisco, Wells Fargo, AbbVie, Amgen, Alphabet (Google). The surge in corporate buybacks started in December after the tax cut of the Trump administration cut U.S. taxes by $1.5 trillion over a decade, cutting the corporate tax rate for large companies from 35% to 21%. The tax cut also included a one time tax for repatriation of $2 trillion held by U.S. companies overseas. This WSJ analysis says there are questions whether the tax cut is working, whether it will encourage new investment, lead to companies increasing wages, or whether this will largely result in corporations returning money to investors with larger dividends and corporate buybacks. Morgan Stanley's analysis of earnings transcripts of companies in the S&P 500 show 44% of the companies say they will use some portion of the tax gains to make capital investments and increase wages, with 28% going in the opposite direction and using them to return money to shareholders. Experts caution that corporate buybacks do not always lead to the company's stock outperforming the stock market. The future of companies depends more on the capital investments and in human capital. There is a sense that workers wages have stagnated since the mortgage financial crisis in 2008, with the economic crisis, globalization and outsourcing, reduced alternatives for workers, geographic pressures in relocation, all pushing wages down.  This is being closely watched with articles on stagnation in wage growth this week in the NYT and WSJ, and earlier in the Economist magazine. Reports on the Trump administration tax cuts passed by a Republican Congress suggested a large tilt towards benefitting the highest income households. Problem with higher stock prices reaching the broader middle class are recognized in that one third of stocks are owned by overseas investors, and 84% of the remaining stocks are owned by the wealthiest 10%. Republicans have turned to bonuses typically of $1000 per person given by companies yet this amounts now to about a few billion dollars over an estimated 4 million Americans, says this WSJ analysis. This is not enough to justify a huge tax cut and raise the deficit by over a trillion over 10 years on the assumption that it would lead to higher wages or capital investment when about $200 billion goes to boosting stock prices. This comes at a time when the American middle class is not broadly invested in the stock market after the exit following the battering stock prices took during the 2008 financial crisis. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Former Fed chairman Paul Volcker has opinion about the financial crisis that is deeply felt. He wants the wall that separates banks that take in federally insured deposits from the public separated from the risky trading activities of investment banking houses. That would essentially put us back to the situation that existed before Glass Steagall Act of 1933 was revoked in the 1999. The lessons of the thirties apply today. Says Volcker "people say I am old-fashioned and banks can no longer be seaprated from nonbank activity, but that argument brought us back to where we are today." The Obama advisers like Geithner and Summers are close to the bankers- see the links to Geithner and Summers- and believe that extensively regulating the banks would prevent the banks from engaging in risky practices. However as this reporter Louis Uchitelle of the NYT has not pointed out, the problem is that this is more easily said than done. The very fact that there were close ties between Geithner and Summers and the bankers during the Clinton Administration and Geithner as head of the New York Fed under the Bush administration, and the aggressive lobbying by the investment banks like Goldman and others who are now banks to water down any regulation on derivatives trading and on other supervision, can only lead to a situation where neither Volcker's solution or the Obama people's solution is put into effect. THis will only invite another crisis. With the public anger even worse as the bonuses and compensation from trading profits by Goldman and other banks come through cheap money created by the Fed- see links- for the purpose of addressing the financial crisis. Volcker would separate JP Morgan and Bear Stearns trading operations and separate Merrill from BofA, and Goldman would revert from abank holding company to a investment banking house. Volcker believes that the pay on Wall Street "has gotten grotesquely large." Volcker believes that the separation of deposit taking institutions from investment banking would reduce trading profits and consequently automatically reduce these large bonuses. So is Volcker being ignored by the Obama administration, even as his glow helped the Obama people win public support as a better steward of the economy than McCain during the election campaign? During the crisis Volcker headed the president's Economic Recovery Advisory Board. Today he is rarely seen in his Washington office, he talks to administration officials mostly on the phone, at 82 he is not knocking on doors, and the advisory board has been assigned to look at the tax law on overseas corporate profits. Volcker agrees with most of the Obama plan on financial regulation including higher capital requirements and and pay guidelines, but if this is not enacted because of lobbying by bankers then the nation will have the benefit of neither the Volcker Plan or the Obama Plan. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The current economic expansion in the U.S. in April 2014 is at 58 months from the beginning of recovery in 2009. In this exceptional account Josh Zombrun of WSJ compares the current expansion to previous expansions since 1950, with the views of experts such as Stan Hall of the NBER committee, which studies turning points. This expansion is forecast to go for 90 months into 2016 by the U.S. Federal Reserve, and 102 months into 2017 by the CBO. Sooner or later, says Stan Hall, some adverse unpredictable event takes place that ends the expansion. So far the expansion has been slow and protracted, as predicted by economists Reinhart and Rogoff from previous financial crises in the last century, giving it room to grow as corporate earnings continue to improve. Fed chairwoman's sense of slack in the economy also provides room for employment and incomes to grow in the later stages of the expansion. This is good news for the emerging market economies such as India and China, and for the European Union, faced with slowing growth. So how does this expansion compare with earlier ones. The expansion of the 1991-2001 of the tech boom was 120 months, 1961-1969 of the Sixties 106 months, 1982-1990 of the Reagan era 92 months. The controversial one on shaky foundations is the recent housing boom 2001-2007 of 73 months ending in a huge bust with the 2008 financial crisis. The shorter expansions are the 1975-1980 Post-Vietnam one for 58 months, and the 1970-1973 spurt before the OPEC price surge. Figures are from the NBER, CBO and the Federal Reserve's Summary of Economic Projections....

LyrArc Article Gist
Under the Volcker Rule setup during the global financial crisis of 2008-2009, banks total investments in private equity, hedge funds and similar higher risk funds cannot exceed 3% of high quality capital. During the financial crisis investment banks were highly leveraged leading to the collapse of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, and the precarious financial condition of other banks. Goldman has pared down about 60% of such investments. Remaining are $4.8 billion in private equity investments, $1.2 billion in real estate, and about $1.1 billion in both credit and hedge funds. Regulators have given the bank till July 2017 to comply. As banks recovered from the impact of the crisis, the tearing of the social fabric that happened with high unemployment in some groups especially older white men, has remained six years after the crisis- as evident in the U.S. election campaigns this year. As a result the mood has shifted for tighter regulation and both party platforms, Republican and Democratic, now call for reinstatement of the Glass Steagall Act, which separated commercial banking from investment banking as part of the lessons learned from the Great Depression. Volcker, was chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve during the Carter administration, known for taking a tough line against inflation. He was the principal driver of the move to restrict banks from risky activity, and faced considerable opposition from banks during the 2009-2013 period when the rule was being formulated.  ...