Connect with us

Featured

Here’s why the Sanders-Schumer bill limiting stock buybacks misses the point

Senators Bernie Sanders and Chuck Schumer have proposed a new law where public companies have to meet certain conditions first before they could pay dividends or buy back shares.

Published

on

Senators Bernie Sanders and Chuck Schumer have proposed legislation that would stop public companies from paying dividends or buying back their shares unless they first meet certain conditions.

The senators aren’t worried about viability (companies are financially stable before they send cash back to their shareholders). Instead, they want to verify that companies have done enough to support employees before they give anything back to investors.

That’s not so subtle code for, “Make sure you redistribute wealth before giving anything back.”

The senators make their case by pointing to last year’s tax reform and how much of the corporate windfall was spent on stock buybacks (almost $1 trillion), even as companies refused to invest, closed locations, and fired employees.

But in making their point, Sanders and Schumer miss the point.

Companies don’t choose to buy back shares or pay higher dividends because investors demand it. They take those actions because they think it’s the best use of investor money. And that’s the crux of the issue.

Who owns the cash? Is it yours as an investor, or do workers have a claim on it, as Sanders and Schumer suggest?

When I save some of my income and invest it in corporate stocks, I’m pretty sure that it’s my money. It doesn’t magically become partially owned by someone else just because I chose to invest.

And these senators are part of the reason that most people must invest in equities. They’re part of the system that increases government deficit spending and eats away at the dollar, all while the Fed holds interest rates near record lows.

We can only get ahead if we can beat inflation, which pushes us to equities, where Senators Schumer and Sanders want to chip away at our cash from a different angle.

As for workers, the senators claim in their New York Times opinion piece that companies and workers lived in a loving, kumbaya world from the mid-20th century until the 1970s, a time of joyous symbiotic goals and dreams between owners of capital and employees.

That’s a load of bull, and it only covers a paltry 25 years (1950 to 1975), which is less time than many politicians have been in office.

SEE ALSO  A counter to a trade deal between the US and China

They’re missing the whole story

We’ve discussed this at Dent Research many times. The situation wasn’t born of some enlightenment or appreciation for one another’s feelings.

The only reason workers had power in the mid-20th century is because America played an away game in World War II while the rest of the developed world was essentially bombed back to the Stone Age.

workers

Our labor force is simply not enough to meet the world’s needs. (Photo by Rawpixel.com via Shutterstock)

When it came time to rebuild, the world needed everything from us: factors of production, food, capital, etc. We simply didn’t have the manpower to provide everything the world needed, and our labor force was the bottleneck.

As other nations brought their factories and equipment back online, they didn’t need us as much. In fact, other countries eventually outstripped us in terms of efficiency, which caused us to lose ground in manufacturing.

Back to Sanders and Schumer

They want to recreate the value proposition of workers from that small window in time, but without any of the other characteristics of the time.

If companies were desperate for workers, they would pay more. If America was the most efficient growing producer in many areas, we’d need more workers — and would pay more. But that’s not the way it is, so Schumer and Sanders want to force it by simply demanding higher pay, no matter what the business environment.

Companies aren’t closing locations because they’re so profitable, and they aren’t declining to invest because they have so many wonderful opportunities. We’ve had near zero interest rates for almost a decade. If a company saw a great investment, it could access plenty of cash to chase it.

As we noted last year, corporate tax reform leveled the playing field between the U.S. and many other nations in terms of what we charge companies to do business, but it didn’t change economic dynamics. We’re still stuck in a low growth environment.

SEE ALSO  Is tech eliminating inequality or making it worse?

What to do instead

I agree that many public companies are terrible stewards of investor capital, but my beef runs up and down the corporate ladder. I can’t imagine that any CEO is worth $20 million, or even $10 million. And there are plenty of employees who’ve been contributing to corporate profits for years without enjoying the benefits of their company’s success.

It would be much more American to slash executive compensation and put all employees in a profit-sharing pool voted on by investors than to have the government require some minimum level of payment.

Obviously, those at the top would share at a higher level, but everyone would be part of the ebb and flow of business. This is not about stock options, which can be gamed by stock buybacks and other sleights of hand. Profit sharing should be based on true, GAAP accounting profits.

This is a problem created by the incestuous relationship between Corporate America and their boards. Those who run one company serve on the board of another, and they all play the same game of guaranteeing outrageous payouts at the top. If we shook up corporate boards, we might get better results.

I also think we should do the same with politicians, such as Senators Schumer and Sanders.

They’ve been part of a government that has run deficits for many years, and have been part of government shutdowns where they still drew paychecks and have guaranteed pensions.

How about they feel the financial effects of their mismanagement? Or better yet, why not just yield their positions through a term limit system, and forgo their government pensions altogether?

But that’s a topic for another day.

(Featured image by boonchoke via Shutterstock)

DISCLAIMER: This article expresses my own ideas and opinions. Any information I have shared are from sources that I believe to be reliable and accurate. I did not receive any financial compensation for writing this post, nor do I own any shares in any company I’ve mentioned. I encourage any reader to do their own diligent research first before making any investment decisions.

Rodney works closely with Harry Dent at Economy and Markets to study the purchasing power of people as they move through predictable stages of life, how that purchasing power drives our economy and how readers can use this information to invest successfully in the markets. Rodney began his career in financial services on Wall Street in the 1980s with Thomson McKinnon and then Prudential Securities. He started working on projects with Harry in the mid-1990s. He’s a regular guest on several radio programs and is featured on television where he discusses economic trends ranging from the price of oil to the direction of the U.S. economy. He too is a regular guest on Fox Business’s “America’s Nightly Scorecard.”Rodney’s book, Irrational Economics, explains the forces that you cannot see but that really drive the economy and markets and can cause your wealth to rise or fall. To survive and prosper, you need the new money rules of the 21st century, which he outlines in this book. He holds degrees from Georgetown University and Southern Methodist University.

Continue Reading

Most Popular