Shareholder Capitalism: Rising Market Concentration, Slower Productivity Growth, Rising Inequality, Rising Profits, and Rising Equities Markets

Shareholder Capitalism: Rising Market Concentration, Slower Productivity Growth, Rising Inequality, Rising Profits, and Rising Equities Markets

 

Public traded companies are always under pressure to show earnings growth and sales revenue growth to enhance shareholder value.

 

How do they do it when markets have matured and economy has slowed?

  • Lower Costs
  • Increase Market Share

 

How do then companies lower their costs?

  • Vertical Mergers and Acquisitions
  • Outsourcing (Sourcing parts and components / Intermediate Goods / Inputs from cross border)
  • Offshoring (Shifting Production cross border)
  • Vertical Integration

 

How do then companies increase their market share?

  • Horizontal Mergers and Acquisitions
  • Cross Border Markets Share (Sales in other countries)

 

In the last thirty years, this is exactly what has happened in US economy.

Macro Trends of Outsourcing/Offshoring, Market Concentration, Inequality, Corporate Profits, Equity Prices, Productivity Growth, Interest Rates, Labor Share, and Capital Share.

Please see my other posts expanding on these issues.

Please note that these forces are continuing and trends will remain on current trajectory.

 

Key Terms:

  • Stakeholder vs Shareholder Capitalism
  • Short Termism
  • Slow Productivity Growth
  • Rising Market Concentration
  • Rising Profits
  • Rising Equities Market
  • Rising Inequality
  • Dupont Ratio Analysis
  • Financial Planning (Micro – Firm Level)
  • Economic Planning (Macro- Aggregate Level)
  • Quarterly Capitalism

 

From SHAREHOLDER CAPITALISM: A SYSTEM IN CRISIS

Our current, highly financialised, form of shareholder capitalism is not just failing to provide new capital for investment, it is actively undermining the ability of listed companies to reinvest their own profits. The stock market has become a vehicle for extracting value from companies, not for injecting it.

No wonder that Andy Haldane, Chief Economist of the Bank of England, recently suggested that shareholder capitalism is ‘eating itself.’1 Corporate governance has become dominated by the need to maximise short-term shareholder returns. At the same time, financial markets have grown more complex, highly intermediated, and similarly shorttermist, with shares increasingly seen as paper assets to be traded rather than long term investments in sound businesses.

This kind of trading is a zero-sum game with no new wealth, let alone social value, created. For one person to win, another must lose – and increasingly, the only real winners appear to be the army of financial intermediaries who control and perpetuate the merry-goround. There is nothing natural or inevitable about the shareholder-owned corporation as it currently exists. Like all economic institutions, it is a product of political and economic choices which can and should be remade if they no longer serve our economy, society, or environment.

Here’s the impact this shareholder model is currently having:
• Economy: Shareholder capitalism is holding back productive investment. Even the Chief Executive of BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, has admitted that pressure to keep the share price high means corporate leaders are ‘underinvesting in innovation, skilled workforces or essential capital expenditures.’ 2
• Society: Shareholder capitalism is driving inequality. There is growing evidence that attempts to align executive pay with shareholder value are largely responsible for the ballooning of salaries at the top. The prioritisation of shareholder interests has also contributed to a dramatic decline in UK wages relative to profits, helping to explain the failure of ordinary people’s living standards to rise in line with economic growth.
• Environment: Shareholder capitalism helps to drive environmental destruction. It does this by driving risky shortterm behaviour, such as fossil fuel extraction, which ignores long-term environmental risks.

The idea that shareholder capitalism is the most efficient way to mobilise large amounts of capital is no longer tenable.

We need both to create new models of companies, and implement new ways of organising investment that are fit for building an inclusive, equal, and sustainable economy.

Companies should be explicitly accountable to a mission and a set of interests beyond shareholder returns. Equally, investment must provide long-term capital for socially and environmentally useful projects, and damaging forms of speculation must be restricted.

For most people, our economy simply is not working, and the damaging aspects of shareholder capitalism are at least in part responsible. Reforming shareholder capitalism must not be dismissed as too difficult – the crisis is too urgent for that. We can take the first steps towards a better economic model right now. It’s time to act.

 

 

A Crash Course in Dupont Financial Ratio Analysis

 

  • What happens when economic growth slows ?
  • What happens when profit margins decline ?
  • What happens when Sales growth is limited ?
  • What does lead to Mergers and Acquisitions ?
  • What is the impact of Cost of Capital ?
  • What is EVA (Economic Value Added) ?
  • What is impact of Outsourcing/Offshoring on Financial Ratios ?
  • What is impact of Mergers and Acquisitions on Financial Ratios ?
  • What is impact of Stock Buy Backs on Financial Ratios ?
  • What is impact of Dividends on Financial Ratios ?
  • ROS (Return on Sales)
  • ROE (Return on Equities)
  • ROA (Return on Assets)
  • ROIC (Return on Invested Capital)
  • EVA (Economic Value Added)
  • MVA (Market Value Added)

From The DuPont Equation, ROE, ROA, and Growth

The DuPont Equation

The DuPont equation is an expression which breaks return on equity down into three parts: profit margin, asset turnover, and leverage.

Learning Objectives

Explain why splitting the return on equity calculation into its component parts may be helpful to an analyst

Key Takeaways

Key Points

  • By splitting ROE into three parts, companies can more easily understand changes in their returns on equity over time.
  • As profit margin increases, every sale will bring more money to a company’s bottom line, resulting in a higher overall return on equity.
  • As asset turnover increases, a company will generate more sales per asset owned, resulting in a higher overall return on equity.
  • Increased financial leverage will also lead to an increase in return on equity, since using more debt financing brings on higher interest payments, which are tax deductible.

Key Terms

  • competitive advantage: something that places a company or a person above the competition

The DuPont Equation

image

DuPont Model: A flow chart representation of the DuPont Model.

The DuPont equation is an expression which breaks return on equity down into three parts. The name comes from the DuPont Corporation, which created and implemented this formula into their business operations in the 1920s. This formula is known by many other names, including DuPont analysis, DuPont identity, the DuPont model, the DuPont method, or the strategic profit model.

The DuPont Equation: In the DuPont equation, ROE is equal to profit margin multiplied by asset turnover multiplied by financial leverage.

Under DuPont analysis, return on equity is equal to the profit margin multiplied by asset turnover multiplied by financial leverage. By splitting ROE (return on equity) into three parts, companies can more easily understand changes in their ROE over time.

Components of the DuPont Equation: Profit Margin

Profit margin is a measure of profitability. It is an indicator of a company’s pricing strategies and how well the company controls costs. Profit margin is calculated by finding the net profit as a percentage of the total revenue. As one feature of the DuPont equation, if the profit margin of a company increases, every sale will bring more money to a company’s bottom line, resulting in a higher overall return on equity.

Components of the DuPont Equation: Asset Turnover

Asset turnover is a financial ratio that measures how efficiently a company uses its assets to generate sales revenue or sales income for the company. Companies with low profit margins tend to have high asset turnover, while those with high profit margins tend to have low asset turnover. Similar to profit margin, if asset turnover increases, a company will generate more sales per asset owned, once again resulting in a higher overall return on equity.

Components of the DuPont Equation: Financial Leverage

Financial leverage refers to the amount of debt that a company utilizes to finance its operations, as compared with the amount of equity that the company utilizes. As was the case with asset turnover and profit margin, Increased financial leverage will also lead to an increase in return on equity. This is because the increased use of debt as financing will cause a company to have higher interest payments, which are tax deductible. Because dividend payments are not tax deductible, maintaining a high proportion of debt in a company’s capital structure leads to a higher return on equity.

The DuPont Equation in Relation to Industries

The DuPont equation is less useful for some industries, that do not use certain concepts or for which the concepts are less meaningful. On the other hand, some industries may rely on a single factor of the DuPont equation more than others. Thus, the equation allows analysts to determine which of the factors is dominant in relation to a company’s return on equity. For example, certain types of high turnover industries, such as retail stores, may have very low profit margins on sales and relatively low financial leverage. In industries such as these, the measure of asset turnover is much more important.

High margin industries, on the other hand, such as fashion, may derive a substantial portion of their competitive advantage from selling at a higher margin. For high end fashion and other luxury brands, increasing sales without sacrificing margin may be critical. Finally, some industries, such as those in the financial sector, chiefly rely on high leverage to generate an acceptable return on equity. While a high level of leverage could be seen as too risky from some perspectives, DuPont analysis enables third parties to compare that leverage with other financial elements that can determine a company’s return on equity.

ROE and Potential Limitations

Return on equity measures the rate of return on the ownership interest of a business and is irrelevant if earnings are not reinvested or distributed.

Learning Objectives

Calculate a company’s return on equity

Key Takeaways

Key Points

  • Return on equity is an indication of how well a company uses investment funds to generate earnings growth.
  • Returns on equity between 15% and 20% are generally considered to be acceptable.
  • Return on equity is equal to net income (after preferred stock dividends but before common stock dividends) divided by total shareholder equity (excluding preferred shares ).
  • Stock prices are most strongly determined by earnings per share (EPS) as opposed to return on equity.

Key Terms

  • fundamental analysis: An analysis of a business with the goal of financial projections in terms of income statement, financial statements and health, management and competitive advantages, and competitors and markets.

Return On Equity

Return on equity (ROE) measures the rate of return on the ownership interest or shareholders’ equity of the common stock owners. It is a measure of a company’s efficiency at generating profits using the shareholders’ stake of equity in the business. In other words, return on equity is an indication of how well a company uses investment funds to generate earnings growth. It is also commonly used as a target for executive compensation, since ratios such as ROE tend to give management an incentive to perform better. Returns on equity between 15% and 20% are generally considered to be acceptable.

The Formula

Return on equity is equal to net income, after preferred stock dividends but before common stock dividends, divided by total shareholder equity and excluding preferred shares.

Return On Equity: ROE is equal to after-tax net income divided by total shareholder equity.

Expressed as a percentage, return on equity is best used to compare companies in the same industry. The decomposition of return on equity into its various factors presents various ratios useful to companies in fundamental analysis.

ROE Broken Down: This is an expression of return on equity decomposed into its various factors.

The practice of decomposing return on equity is sometimes referred to as the “DuPont System. ”

Potential Limitations of ROE

Just because a high return on equity is calculated does not mean that a company will see immediate benefits. Stock prices are most strongly determined by earnings per share (EPS) as opposed to return on equity. Earnings per share is the amount of earnings per each outstanding share of a company’s stock. EPS is equal to profit divided by the weighted average of common shares.

Earnings Per Share: EPS is equal to profit divided by the weighted average of common shares.

The true benefit of a high return on equity comes from a company’s earnings being reinvested into the business or distributed as a dividend. In fact, return on equity is presumably irrelevant if earnings are not reinvested or distributed.

Assessing Internal Growth and Sustainability

Sustainable– as opposed to internal– growth gives a company a better idea of its growth rate while keeping in line with financial policy.

Learning Objectives

Calculate a company’s internal growth and sustainability ratios

Key Takeaways

Key Points

  • The internal growth rate is a formula for calculating the maximum growth rate a firm can achieve without resorting to external financing.
  • Sustainable growth is defined as the annual percentage of increase in sales that is consistent with a defined financial policy.
  • Another measure of growth, the optimal growth rate, assesses sustainable growth from a total shareholder return creation and profitability perspective, independent of a given financial strategy.

Key Terms

  • retention: The act of retaining; something retained
  • retention ratio: retained earnings divided by net income
  • sustainable growth rate: the optimal growth from a financial perspective assuming a given strategy with clear defined financial frame conditions/ limitations

Internal Growth and Sustainability

The true benefit of a high return on equity arises when retained earnings are reinvested into the company’s operations. Such reinvestment should, in turn, lead to a high rate of growth for the company. The internal growth rate is a formula for calculating maximum growth rate that a firm can achieve without resorting to external financing. It’s essentially the growth that a firm can supply by reinvesting its earnings. This can be described as (retained earnings)/(total assets ), or conceptually as the total amount of internal capital available compared to the current size of the organization.

We find the internal growth rate by dividing net income by the amount of total assets (or finding return on assets ) and subtracting the rate of earnings retention. However, growth is not necessarily favorable. Expansion may strain managers’ capacity to monitor and handle the company’s operations. Therefore, a more commonly used measure is the sustainable growth rate.

Sustainable growth is defined as the annual percentage of increase in sales that is consistent with a defined financial policy, such as target debt to equity ratio, target dividend payout ratio, target profit margin, or target ratio of total assets to net sales.

We find the sustainable growth rate by dividing net income by shareholder equity (or finding return on equity) and subtracting the rate of earnings retention. While the internal growth rate assumes no financing, the sustainable growth rate assumes you will make some use of outside financing that will be consistent with whatever financial policy being followed. In fact, in order to achieve a higher growth rate, the company would have to invest more equity capital, increase its financial leverage, or increase the target profit margin.

Optimal Growth Rate

Another measure of growth, the optimal growth rate, assesses sustainable growth from a total shareholder return creation and profitability perspective, independent of a given financial strategy. The concept of optimal growth rate was originally studied by Martin Handschuh, Hannes Lösch, and Björn Heyden. Their study was based on assessments on the performance of more than 3,500 stock-listed companies with an initial revenue of greater than 250 million Euro globally, across industries, over a period of 12 years from 1997 to 2009.

image

Revenue Growth and Profitability: ROA, ROS and ROE tend to rise with revenue growth to a certain extent.

Due to the span of time included in the study, the authors considered their findings to be, for the most part, independent of specific economic cycles. The study found that return on assets, return on sales and return on equity do in fact rise with increasing revenue growth of between 10% to 25%, and then fall with further increasing revenue growth rates. Furthermore, the authors attributed this profitability increase to the following facts:

  1. Companies with substantial profitability have the opportunity to invest more in additional growth, and
  2. Substantial growth may be a driver for additional profitability, whether by attracting high performing young professionals, providing motivation for current employees, attracting better business partners, or simply leading to more self-confidence.

However, according to the study, growth rates beyond the “profitability maximum” rate could bring about circumstances that reduce overall profitability because of the efforts necessary to handle additional growth (i.e., integrating new staff, controlling quality, etc).

Dividend Payments and Earnings Retention

The dividend payout and retention ratios offer insight into how much of a firm’s profit is distributed to shareholders versus retained.

Learning Objectives

Calculate a company’s dividend payout and retention ratios

Key Takeaways

Key Points

  • Many corporations retain a portion of their earnings and pay the remainder as a dividend.
  • Dividends are usually paid in the form of cash, store credits, or shares in the company.
  • Cash dividends are a form of investment income and are usually taxable to the recipient in the year that they are paid.
  • Dividend payout ratio is the fraction of net income a firm pays to its stockholders in dividends.
  • Retained earnings can be expressed in the retention ratio.

Key Terms

  • stock split: To issue a higher number of new shares to replace old shares. This effectively increases the number of shares outstanding without changing the market capitalization of the company.

Dividend Payments and Earnings Retention

Dividends are payments made by a corporation to its shareholder members. It is the portion of corporate profits paid out to stockholders. On the other hand, retained earnings refers to the portion of net income which is retained by the corporation rather than distributed to its owners as dividends. Similarly, if the corporation takes a loss, then that loss is retained and called variously retained losses, accumulated losses or accumulated deficit. Retained earnings and losses are cumulative from year to year with losses offsetting earnings. Many corporations retain a portion of their earnings and pay the remainder as a dividend.

A dividend is allocated as a fixed amount per share. Therefore, a shareholder receives a dividend in proportion to their shareholding. Retained earnings are shown in the shareholder equity section in the company’s balance sheet –the same as its issued share capital.

Public companies usually pay dividends on a fixed schedule, but may declare a dividend at any time, sometimes called a “special dividend” to distinguish it from the fixed schedule dividends. Dividends are usually paid in the form of cash, store credits (common among retail consumers’ cooperatives), or shares in the company (either newly created shares or existing shares bought in the market). Further, many public companies offer dividend reinvestment plans, which automatically use the cash dividend to purchase additional shares for the shareholder.

Cash dividends (most common) are those paid out in currency, usually via electronic funds transfer or a printed paper check. Such dividends are a form of investment income and are usually taxable to the recipient in the year they are paid. This is the most common method of sharing corporate profits with the shareholders of the company. For each share owned, a declared amount of money is distributed. Thus, if a person owns 100 shares and the cash dividend is $0.50 per share, the holder of the stock will be paid $50. Dividends paid are not classified as an expense but rather a deduction of retained earnings. Dividends paid do not show up on an income statement but do appear on the balance sheet.

image

Example Balance Sheet: Retained earnings can be found on the balance sheet, under the owners’ (or shareholders’) equity section.

Stock dividends are those paid out in the form of additional stock shares of the issuing corporation or another corporation (such as its subsidiary corporation). They are usually issued in proportion to shares owned (for example, for every 100 shares of stock owned, a 5% stock dividend will yield five extra shares). If the payment involves the issue of new shares, it is similar to a stock split in that it increases the total number of shares while lowering the price of each share without changing the market capitalization, or total value, of the shares held.

Dividend Payout and Retention Ratios

Dividend payout ratio is the fraction of net income a firm pays to its stockholders in dividends:

The part of the earnings not paid to investors is left for investment to provide for future earnings growth. These retained earnings can be expressed in the retention ratio. Retention ratio can be found by subtracting the dividend payout ratio from one, or by dividing retained earnings by net income.

Dividend Payout Ratio: The dividend payout ratio is equal to dividend payments divided by net income for the same period.

Relationships between ROA, ROE, and Growth

Return on assets is a component of return on equity, both of which can be used to calculate a company’s rate of growth.

Learning Objectives

Discuss the different uses of the Return on Assets and Return on Assets ratios

Key Takeaways

Key Points

  • Return on equity measures the rate of return on the shareholders ‘ equity of common stockholders.
  • Return on assets shows how profitable a company’s assets are in generating revenue.
  • In other words, return on assets makes up two-thirds of the DuPont equation measuring return on equity.
  • Capital intensity is the term for the amount of fixed or real capital present in relation to other factors of production. Rising capital intensity pushes up the productivity of labor.

Key Terms

  • return on common stockholders’ equity: a fiscal year’s net income (after preferred stock dividends but before common stock dividends) divided by total equity (excluding preferred shares), expressed as a percentage
  • quantitatively: With respect to quantity rather than quality.

Return On Assets Versus Return On Equity

In review, return on equity measures the rate of return on the ownership interest (shareholders’ equity) of common stockholders. Therefore, it shows how well a company uses investment funds to generate earnings growth. Return on assets shows how profitable a company’s assets are in generating revenue. Return on assets is equal to net income divided by total assets.

Return On Assets: Return on assets is equal to net income divided by total assets.

This percentage shows what the company can do with what it has (i.e., how many dollars of earnings they derive from each dollar of assets they control). This is in contrast to return on equity, which measures a firm’s efficiency at generating profits from every unit of shareholders’ equity. Return on assets is, however, a vital component of return on equity, being an indicator of how profitable a company is before leverage is considered. In other words, return on assets makes up two-thirds of the DuPont equation measuring return on equity.

ROA, ROE, and Growth

In terms of growth rates, we use the value known as return on assets to determine a company’s internal growth rate. This is the maximum growth rate a firm can achieve without resorting to external financing. We use the value for return on equity, however, in determining a company’s sustainable growth rate, which is the maximum growth rate a firm can achieve without issuing new equity or changing its debt-to-equity ratio.

Capital Intensity and Growth

Return on assets gives us an indication of the capital intensity of the company. “Capital intensity” is the term for the amount of fixed or real capital present in relation to other factors of production, especially labor. The underlying concept here is how much output can be procured from a given input (assets!). The formula for capital intensity is below:

Capital Intensity=Total AssetsSales

The use of tools and machinery makes labor more effective, so rising capital intensity pushes up the productivity of labor. While companies that require large initial investments will generally have lower return on assets, it is possible that increased productivity will provide a higher growth rate for the company. Capital intensity can be stated quantitatively as the ratio of the total money value of capital equipment to the total potential output. However, when we adjust capital intensity for real market situations, such as the discounting of future cash flows, we find that it is not independent of the distribution of income. In other words, changes in the retention or dividend payout ratios can lead to changes in measured capital intensity.

 

 

1280px-DuPontModelEng.svg

Please see my related posts:

Rising Market Concentration and Declining Business Investments in the USA – Update June 2018

Why do Firms buyback their Shares? Causes and Consequences.

FDI vs Outsourcing: Extending Boundaries or Extending Network Chains of Firms

Trading Down: NAFTA, TPP, TATIP and Economic Globalization

On Inequality of Wealth and Income – Causes and Consequences

Rising Profits, Rising Inequality, and Rising Industry Concentration in the USA

Low Interest Rates and Business Investments : Update August 2017

Low Interest Rates and Monetary Policy Effectiveness

Low Interest Rates and Banks’ Profitability : Update July 2017

Short term Thinking in Investment Decisions of Businesses and Financial Markets

Mergers and Acquisitions – Long Term Trends and Waves

Business Investments and Low Interest Rates

The Decline in Long Term Real Interest Rates

Low Interest Rates and Banks Profitability: Update – December 2016

 

 Key Sources of Research:

 

 

 

The DuPont Equation, ROE, ROA, and Growth

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-finance/chapter/the-dupont-equation-roe-roa-and-growth/

 

 

Short-Termism in business: causes, mechanisms and consequences

EY Poland Report

 

https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/EY_Poland_Report/%24FILE/Short-termism_raport_EY.pdf

 

 

Shareholders vs Stakeholders Capitalism

Fabian Brandt

Goethe University

Konstantinos Georgiou

University of Pennsylvania

 

https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=fisch_2016

 

 

Hedrick Smith Speaks to the Community about Who Stole the American Dream.

 

http://nhlabornews.com/2013/10/hedrick-smith-speaks-to-the-community-about-who-stole-the-american-dream/

 

 

Let’s Talk About “Maximizing Shareholder Value”

https://www.pragcap.com/lets-talk-about-maximizing-shareholder-value/

 

 

SHAREHOLDER CAPITALISM: A SYSTEM IN CRISIS

 

New Economics Foundation

 

https://neweconomics.org/uploads/files/NEF_SHAREHOLDER-CAPITALISM_E_latest.pdf

 

 

 

THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF SHAREHOLDER VALUE CAPITALISM

 

Mark S. Mizruchi and Howard Kirneldorf

 

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/63d9/191bbc2b82f351633c7379deea7b9ccad0e9.pdf

 

 

Shareholder capitalism on trial

 

By Robert J. Samuelson

 

http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/corp_gov/MediaMentions/03-19-15_WashingtonPost.pdf

 

 

 

The real business of business

McKinsey

 

https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/dotcom/client_service/Corporate%20Finance/MoF/Issue%2053/MoF53_The_real_business_of_business.ashx

 

 

 

Managers and Market Capitalism

 

Rebecca Henderson Karthik Ramanna

HBR

 

https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/conferences/2013-sustainability-and-corporation/Documents/Henderson_Ramanna___Managers_and_Market_Capitalism___March_2013.pdf

 

 

The Embedded Firm: Corporate Governance, Labor, and Finance Capitalism

Peer Zumbansen

Cynthia A. Williams

 

http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1056&context=clpe

 

 

 

 

Andrew G Haldane: Who owns a company?

Speech by Mr Andrew G Haldane,

Executive Director and Chief Economist of the Bank of England,

at the University of Edinburgh Corporate Finance Conference, Edinburgh,

22 May 2015.

 

https://www.bis.org/review/r150811a.pdf

 

 

 

 

Capitalism for the Long Term

MARCH 2011
HBR

The Short Long

 

Speech by
Andrew G Haldane, Executive Director, Financial Stability, and Richard Davies

29th Societé Universitaire Europeene de Recherches Financieres Colloquium: New Paradigms in Money and Finance?

Brussels

May 2011

 

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/speech/2011/the-short-long-speech-by-andrew-haldane

 

 

 

 

Is short-termism wrecking the economy?

Redefining capitalism

By Eric Beinhocker and Nick Hanauer

Fast finance and slow growth

 

Andy Haldane

http://progressive-policy.net/2015/09/fast-finance-and-slow-growth/

 

Beyond Shareholder Value

The reasons and choices for corporate governance reform

https://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/BSV.pdf

 

 

AN ECONOMY FOR THE 99%

It’s time to build a human economy that benefits everyone, not just the privileged few

OXFAM

 

https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/file_attachments/bp-economy-for-99-percent-160117-en.pdf

 

 

Short-Termism

By Douglas K. Chia

 

https://www.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/millstein-center/files/10Anniversary/01181_millstein_10th_anniversary_essay_2_chia_v2.pdf

 

 

 

The Future of Finance

THE LSE REPORT

 

http://www.lse.ac.uk/fmg/assets/documents/paul-woolley-centre/articles-of-general-interest/future-of-finance-chapter-3.pdf

 

 

 

Is Short-Term Behavior Jeopardizing the Future Prosperity of Business?

 

http://www.wlrk.com/docs/IsShortTermBehaviorJeopardizingTheFutureProsperityOfBusiness_CEOStrategicImplications.pdf

 

 

 

 

How Effective Capital Regulation can Help Reduce the Too‐Big‐To‐Fail Problem

Anat Admati

Stanford University

 

http://bankersnewclothes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Minn-Fed-combined.pdf

 

 

 

Business School’s Worst Idea: Why the “Maximize Shareholder Value” Theory Is Bogus

Yves Smith

http://evonomics.com/maximize-shareholder-value-theory-yves-smith/

 

 

 

When Shareholder Capitalism Came to Town

The American Prospect

http://prospect.org/article/when-shareholder-capitalism-came-town

 

 

 

Competition Conference 2018

What’s the Evidence for Strengthening Competition Policy?

Boston University

July 2018

http://sites.bu.edu/tpri/competition-conference-2018/

 

 

 

Market Concentration

Issues paper by the Secretariat
6-8 June 2018

This document was prepared by the OECD Secretariat to serve as an issues paper for the hearing on market concentration taking place at the 129th meeting of the OECD Competition Committee on 6-8 June 2018

https://one.oecd.org/document/DAF/COMP/WD(2018)46/en/pdf

 

 

 

 

Monopoly’s New Era

In today’s economy, many industries can’t be analyzed through the lens of competition.

Chazen Global Insights
May 13, 2016

 

https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/articles/chazen-global-insights/monopoly-s-new-era

 

 

 

Market power in the U.S. economy today

Washington Center for Equitable Growth

http://equitablegrowth.org/research-analysis/market-power-in-the-u-s-economy-today/

 

 

 

Don’t Panic: A Guide to Claims of Increasing Concentration

Gregory J. Werden

Luke Froeb

 

Date Written: April 5, 2018

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3156912

 

 

 

Market concentration

OECD

http://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/market-concentration.htm

 

 

 

 

A Firm-Level Perspective on the Role of Rents in the Rise in Inequality

Jason Furman Peter Orszag1

October 16, 2015

http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/teaching/FurmanOrszag15.pdf

 

 

 

Do the Productivity Slowdown and the Inequality Increase Have a Common Cause?

Jason Furman (joint work with Peter Orszag)

Peterson Institute for International Economics
Washington, DC
November 9, 2017

https://piie.com/system/files/documents/4-1furman20171109ppt.pdf

 

 

 

Is There a Connection Between Market Concentration and the Rise in Inequality?

https://promarket.org/connection-market-concentration-rise-inequality/

 

 

 

Concentrating on the Fall of the Labor Share

David; Dorn, David; Katz, Lawrence F; Patterson, Christina; Reenen, John Van

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cbc2/b8d7a989cab4b76e7fe795bf4572dbcdd0bc.pdf

 

 

 

 

Business Investment Spending Slowdown

April 9, 2018

FAS Congressional Research Services

Marc Labonte

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IN10882.pdf

 

 

 

 

Market Power and Inequality: The Antitrust Counterrevolution and Its Discontents

Lina Khan and Sandeep Vaheesan

http://harvardlpr.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/HLP110.pdf

 

 

 

Five Myths about Economic Inequality in America

By Michael D. Tanner
September 7, 2016

 

Cato Institiute

https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/five-myths-about-economic-inequality-america

 

 

 

 

Is the US Public Corporation in Trouble?

Kathleen M. Kahle and René M. Stulz

https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.31.3.67

 

 

 

Declining Labor and Capital Shares

Simcha Barkai

http://www.eco.uc3m.es/~mkredler/ReadGr/FeijooOnBarkai17.pdf

 

 

 

Growing Productivity without Growing Wages: The Micro-Level Anatomy of the Aggregate Labor Share Decline

Kehrig, Matthias; Vincent, Nicolas

(2017)

https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/161893/1/cesifo1_wp6454.pdf

 

 

 

 

Declining Competition and Investment in the U.S.

Germán Gutiérrez† and Thomas Philippon‡

March 2017

https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty-research/sites/faculty-research/files/finance/Macro%20Lunch/IK_Comp_v1.pdf

 

 

 

ACCOUNTING FOR RISING CORPORATE PROFITS: INTANGIBLES OR REGULATORY
RENTS?

James Bessen

Boston University School of Law

November 9, 2016

https://www.bu.edu/law/files/2016/11/Accounting-for-Rising-Corporate-Profits.pdf

 

 

 

 

Kaldor and Piketty’s facts: The rise of monopoly power in the United States

Gauti Eggertsson
Jacob A. Robbins
Ella Getz Wold

Feb 2018

https://equitablegrowth.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/02052018-WP-kaldor-piketty-monopoly-power.pdf

 

 

 

 

Is There an Investment Gap in Advanced Economies? If So, Why?

Robin Döttling

German Gutierrez Gallardo

Thomas Philippon

 

Date Written: July 2017

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3002796

 

 

 

 

Antitrust in a Time of Populism

Professor Carl Shapiro

CRESSE 2017 Heraklion – Crete, Greece

2 July 2017
http://www.cresse.info/uploadfiles/2017_Key_SHAPIRO.pdf

 

 

 

The Incredible Shrinking Universe of Stocks

The Causes and Consequences of Fewer U.S. Equities

Credit Suisse

March 2917

https://www.cmgwealth.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/document_1072753661.pdf

 

 

 

Declining Competition and Investment in the U.S

German Gutierrez Gallardo

Thomas Philippon

 

Date Written: December 2017

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3095586

 

 

 

 

The Fall and Rise of Market Power in Europe

John P. Weche and Achim Wambach

https://ub-madoc.bib.uni-mannheim.de/44598/1/dp18003.pdf

https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/173383/1/1011811367.pdf

 

 

 

 

On the Formation of Capital and Wealth: IT, Monopoly Power and Rising Inequality

Mordecai Kurz,

Stanford University

2018

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6564/e50bf8be5c75f1cca2e9e3d4afa4b8b8ac84.pdf

 

 

 

 

Appendix for \Investment-less Growth: An Empirical Investigation”

 

German Gutierrez and Thomas Philippony

March 2018

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/gutierrezappendixfa17bpea.pdf

 

 

 

 

WP 18-4 Slower Productivity and Higher Inequality: Are They Related?

Jason Furman and Peter Orszag

June 2018

PIIE

https://piie.com/system/files/documents/wp18-4.pdf

 

 

 

 

THE FUTURE OF PRODUCTIVITY

OECD

2015

 

https://www.oecd.org/eco/OECD-2015-The-future-of-productivity-book.pdf

 

 

 

 

OECD Study on the Future of Productivity

Video

PIIE

 

 

 

 

 

A productivity perspective on the future of growth

By James Manyika, Jaana Remes, and Jonathan Woetzel
McKinsey
2014

https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/employment-and-growth/a-productivity-perspective-on-the-future-of-growth

 

 

 

 

The future of productivity in manufacturing

Anne Green, Terence Hogarth, Erika Kispeter, David Owen

Peter Glover

February 2016

https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/ier/research/strategic_lmi/ier_2016_manufacturing_sector_productivity_report.pdf

 

 

 

 

THE PRODUCTIVITY OUTLOOK: PESSIMISTS VERSUS OPTIMISTS

August 2016

Zia Qureshi
at the Brookings Institution
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/productivity-outlook.pdf

 

 

 

The Slowdown in Productivity Growth: A View from International Trade

Development Issues No. 11

UN

April 2017

https://www.un.org/development/desa/dped/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/publication/dsp_policy_11.pdf

 

 

 

 

Five Puzzles in the Behavior of Productivity, Investment, and Innovation

Robert J. Gordon

NBER

August 2004

http://www.nber.org/papers/w10660

 

 

 

 

AN OECD AGENDA ON ISSUES IN PRODUCTIVITY MEASUREMENT

Paul Schreyer

OECD Statistics Directorate
2016 World KLEMS Conference
Madrid, May 23-24 2016

http://www.worldklems.net/conferences/worldklems2016/worldklems2016_Schreyer_slides.pdf

 

 

 

THE FUTURE OF PRODUCTIVITY

Chiara Criscuolo
Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation OECD

Understanding the Great recession: from micro to macro
Bank of England
London | 24 September 2015

https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/Presentations/Understanding%20the%20recession_230915/CCriscuolo.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

Industry 4.0

The future of Productivity and Growth in Manufacturing Industries

BCG

https://www.zvw.de/media.media.72e472fb-1698-4a15-8858-344351c8902f.original.pdf

 

 

 

 

The waning of productivity growth

Raymond Van der Putten

http://economic-research.bnpparibas.com/Views/DisplayPublication.aspx?type=document&IdPdf=29178

 

 

The Impact of Robots on Productivity, Employment and Jobs

A positioning paper by the International Federation of Robotics

April 2017

https://ifr.org/img/office/IFR_The_Impact_of_Robots_on_Employment.pdf

 

 

 

 

The fall in productivity growth: causes and implications

Speech given by Silvana Tenreyro, External MPC Member, Bank of England

Peston Lecture Theatre, Queen Mary University of London

15 January 2018

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/speech/2018/the-fall-in-productivity-growth-causes-and-implications

 

 

 

Artificial Intelligence, Automation, and the Economy

Science and Technology Council

Executive Office of the President

December 2016

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/EMBARGOED%20AI%20Economy%20Report.pdf

 

 

 

 

Long-term growth and productivity projections in advanced countries

Gilbert Cette, Rémy Lecat & Carole Ly-Marin

Working Paper #617

December 2016

Bank of France

http://www.longtermproductivity.com/download/DT617.pdf

 

 

 

ARE WE APPROACHING AN ECONOMIC SINGULARITY?
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE FUTURE OF ECONOMIC GROWTH

By
William D. Nordhaus

September 2015

https://cowles.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/pub/d20/d2021.pdf

 

 

 

Challenges for the Future of Chinese Economic Growth

Jane Haltmaier

Federal Reseve Bank USA

2013

https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/ifdp/2013/1072/ifdp1072.pdf

 

 

 

Innovation, research and the UK’s productivity crisis.

Richard Jones

SPERI Paper No. 28

http://speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/SPERI-Paper-28-Innovation-research-and-the-UK-productivity-crisis.pdf

 

 

 

Think Like an Enterprise: Why Nations Need Comprehensive Productivity Strategies

BY ROBERT D. ATKINSON

MAY 2016

http://www2.itif.org/2016-think-like-an-enterprise.pdf

 

 

 

Solving the productivity puzzle

By Jaana Remes, James Manyika, Jacques Bughin, Jonathan Woetzel, Jan Mischke, and Mekala Krishnan

McKinsey

Feb 2018

https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/meeting-societys-expectations/solving-the-productivity-puzzle

 

 

 

Solving the productivity puzzle: the role of demand and the promise of digitization

DR. JAN MISCHKE

McKinsey Global Institute

May 2018

http://bruegel.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/20180523-MGI_Solving-the-productivity-puzzle_Bruegel.pdf

 

 

Worried about Concentration? Then Worry about Rent-Seeking

By Brink Lindsey and Steven Teles
This article appeared on ProMarket on April 18, 2017.

 

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/worried-about-concentration-then-worry-about-rent-seeking

 

 

 

Online platforms, distortion of markets, social impacts and freedom of expression

Oxford Centre for Competition law and policy

22 May 2017

Tim Cowen.

https://www.iicom.org/images/iic/events/regional-local/Europe/20Sep2017/Tim_Cowen_Oxford_Centre_for_Competition_Law_and_Policy_speech_22May2017—updated-21.09.2017.pdf

 

 

 

What’s Behind the Increase in Inequality?

By Eileen Appelbaum*

September 2017

http://cepr.net/images/stories/reports/whats-behind-the-increase-in-inequality-2017-09.pdf

 

 

 

A NATIONAL COMPETITION POLICY: UNPACKING THE PROBLEM OF DECLINING COMPETITION AND SETTING PRIORITIES MOVING FORWARD

American Antitrust Institute

September 28, 2016

http://www.antitrustinstitute.org/sites/default/files/AAINatlCompPolicy.pdf

 

 

 

AI and the Economy

Jason Furman
Harvard Kennedy School
Cambridge, MA

Robert Seamans
NYU Stern School of Business
New York, NY

29 May 2018

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c14099.pdf

 

 

 

The United States and Europe: Short-Run Divergence and Long-Run Challenges

Jason Furman
Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers

Remarks at Bruegel
Brussels, Belgium
May 11, 2016

http://bruegel.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/The-United-States-and-Europe-Short-Run-Divergence-and-Long-Run-Challenges-Jason-Furman.pdf

 

 

 

 

Business Investment Spending Slowdown

April 9, 2018

Marc Labonte

CRS Insights

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IN10882.pdf

 

 

 

 

ECONOMIC REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT

Together With
THE ANNUAL REPORT
of the
COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS

Feb 2016

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ERP-2016/pdf/ERP-2016.pdf

 

 

Keynote Remarks of Commissioner Terrell McSweeny

Washington Center for Equitable Growth

Making Antitrust Work for the 21st Century

Washington, DC

October 6, 2016
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/988713/mcsweeny_-_keynote_remarks_at_equitable_growth_10-6-16.pdf

 

 

Wal-Mart: A Progressive Success Story

Jason Furman

November 28, 2005

https://www.mackinac.org/archives/2006/walmart.pdf

 

 

“America Without Entrepreneurs: The Consequences of Dwindling Startup Activity”

Testimony before
The Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship
United States Senate
June 29, 2016

John W. Lettieri
Cofounder
& Senior Director for Policy and Strategy
Economic Innovation Group

https://www.sbc.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/0/d/0d8d1a51-ee1d-4f83-b740-515e46e861dc/7F75741C1A2E6182E1A5D21B61D278F3.lettieri-testimony.pdf

 

 

 

 

A reading list on market power, superstar firms, and inequality

BLOG

http://www.beyondthetimes.com/2017/08/16/a-partial-reading-list-on-market-power-superstar-firms-and-inequality/

 

 

 

 

 

Productivity Growth in the Advanced Economies:The Past, the Present, and Lessons for the Futures

Jason Furman

Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers

July 2015

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/20150709_productivity_advanced_economies_piie_slides.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

Forms and sources of inequality in the United States

Jason Furman

17 March 2016

VOXEU

 

https://voxeu.org/article/forms-and-sources-inequality-united-states

 

 

 

 

Business Investment in the United States: Facts, Explanations, Puzzles, and Policies

Jason Furman
Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers
Progressive Policy Ins9tute

September 30, 2015

http://www.progressivepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/2015.09.30-Jason-Furman_Business-Investment-in-US-Facts-Explanations-Puzzles-Policies.pdf

 

 

 

 

Can Tax Reform Get Us to 3 Percent Growth?

Jason Furman
Harvard Kennedy School & Peterson Institute for International Economics

New York, NY
November 3, 2017

https://piie.com/system/files/documents/furman20171103ppt.pdf

 

 

 

 

Structural Challenges and Opportunities in the U.S. Economy

Jason Furman
Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers

London School of Economics
November 5, 2014

http://www.lse.ac.uk/assets/richmedia/channels/publicLecturesAndEvents/transcripts/20141105_1830_structuralOpportunitiesUSEconomy_tr.pdf

 

 

Is This Time Different? The Opportunities and Challenges of Artificial Intelligence

Jason Furman
Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers

Remarks at AI Now: The Social and Economic Implications of Artificial Intelligence Technologies in the Near Term
New York University
New York, NY

July 7, 2016

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/20160707_cea_ai_furman.pdf

 

 

 

 

Rebalancing the U.S. Economy

Jason Furman

http://www.international-economy.com/TIE_Sp15_Furman.pdf

 

 

 

 

Should Policymakers Care Whether Inequality Is Helpful or Harmful For Growth?

Jason Furman

Harvard Kennedy School & Peterson Institute for International Economics
Rethinking Macroeconomic Conference, October 11-12 2017

Preliminary Draft: October 5, 2017

https://piie.com/system/files/documents/furman20171012paper.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

A Political Economy of Oligarchy: Winner-take-all ideology, superstar norms, and the rise of the 1%

Yochai Benkler

September, 2017

http://www.benkler.org/Political%20economy%20of%20oligarchy%2001.pdf

 

 

 

 

Can Trump Overcome Secular Stagnation?
Part One: The Demand Side *

James K. Galbraith

http://www.insightweb.it/web/files/can_trump_overcome_secular_stagnation.pdf

 

 

 

 

The macroeconomic effects of the 2017 tax reform

Robert J. Barro, Harvard University
Jason Furman, Harvard University

March 2018

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/4_barrofurman.pdf

 

 

 

 

A FUTURE THAT WORKS: AUTOMATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND PRODUCTIVITY

McKinsey Global Institute

January 2017

https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/featured%20insights/Digital%20Disruption/Harnessing%20automation%20for%20a%20future%20that%20works/A-future-that-works-Executive-summary-MGI-January-2017.ashx

 

 

 

A MISSING LINK: THE ROLE OF ANTITRUST LAW IN RECTIFYING EMPLOYER POWER IN OUR HIGH-PROFIT, LOW-WAGE ECONOMY

ISSUE BRIEF BY MARSHALL STEINBAUM

APRIL 2018

http://rooseveltinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Monopsony-issue-brief.pdf

 

 

 

Inclusive Growth

For once, some good news

by jason furman

https://assets1b.milkeninstitute.org/assets/Publication/MIReview/PDF/16-29-MR64.pdf

 

 

 

 

The Outlook for the U.S. Economy and the Policies of the New President

Jason Furman
Senior Fellow, PIIE
Peterson Institute for International Economics |

SNS/SHOF Finance Panel

Stockholm

June 12, 2017

https://www.sns.se/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/furman20170612ppt.pdf

 

 

 

 

The Role of Economists in Economic Policymaking

Jason Furman
Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics

Arnold C. Harberger Distinguished Lecture on Economic Development
UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations
Los Angeles, CA

April 27, 2017

http://www.washingtonspeakers.com/images/pdfs/furman20170427.pdf

 

 

 

 

Market Concentration – Note by the United States

Hearing on Market Concentration
7 June 2018

OECD

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/us-submissions-oecd-other-international-competition-fora/market_concentration_united_states.pdf

http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=DAF/COMP/WD(2018)59&docLanguage=En

 

 

 

 

The fringe economic theory that might get traction in the 2016 campaign

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/02/the-fringe-economic-theory-that-might-get-traction-in-the-2016-campaign/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.77c5e3479485

 

 

 

ACHIEVING INCLUSIVE GROWTH IN THE FACE OF DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION AND THE FUTURE OF WORK

OECD

https://www.g20.org/sites/default/files/documentos_producidos/achieving_inclusive_growth_in_the_face_of_digital_transformation_and_the_future_of_work_oecd_0.pdf

Advertisements

Cash and Investments: Corporate Savings Glut in USA

Cash and Investments: Corporate Savings Glut in USA

 

Profits/Retained Earnings of a firm can be used in number of ways:

  • Capital Investments
  • Debt Repayment
  • Dividends
  • Cash and Short Term Investments
  • Long Term Investments
  • Share Buybacks
  • M&A Investments

Please see three quarterly reports from FACTSET on trends in

  • Dividents
  • Buybacks
  • Cash and Investments

Share buybacks are very common for several years.

Please see my related posts

Why do Firms buyback their Shares? Causes and Consequences.

Low Interest Rates and Business Investments : Update August 2017

Short term Thinking in Investment Decisions of Businesses and Financial Markets

Mergers and Acquisitions – Long Term Trends and Waves

Business Investments and Low Interest Rates

 

From The Corporate Saving Glut in the Aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis

cash

From Why Are Corporations Holding So Much Cash?

cash 2cash3

 

From FACTSET Cash and Investment Quarterly

cash4

Companies are holding on to the large sum of cash.  Rather than capital investments (CAPEX), cash is being used for share buybacks, dividend payouts, mergers and acquisitions, and cash investments (short and long term).

 

From FACTSET Cash and Investment Quarterly

cash5

Key Sources of Research:

 

The Corporate Saving Glut in the Aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis

Joseph W. Gruber
Steven B. Kamin

This Draft: June 2015

https://www.imf.org/external/np/seminars/eng/2015/secularstag/pdf/Gruber.pdf

 

The global corporate saving glut: Long-term evidence

Peter Chen, Loukas Karabarbounis, Brent Neiman

05 April 2017

http://voxeu.org/article/global-corporate-saving-glut

 

 

 

Declining Labor Shares and the Global Rise of Corporate Saving

Loukas Karabarbounis

Brent Neiman

October 2012

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/brent.neiman/research/labshare.pdf

 

The Global Rise of Corporate Saving

Peter Chen

Loukas Karabarbounis

Brent Neiman

March 2017

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/brent.neiman/research/CKN.pdf

http://www.nber.org/papers/w23133.pdf

 

FACTSET Dividend Quarterly

https://www.factset.com/websitefiles/PDFs/dividend

 

FACTSET Buyback Quarterly

https://www.factset.com/websitefiles/PDFs/buyback

FACTSET Cash and Investment Quarterly

https://www.factset.com/websitefiles/PDFs/cashinvestment

https://insight.factset.com/hubfs/Cash%20and%20Investment%20Quarterly/Cash%20and%20Investment%20Quarterly%20Q3%202016_12.21.16_v2.pdf

 

 

 

Why Are Corporations Holding So Much Cash?

By Juan M. Sanchez and Emircan Yurdagul

2013

 

https://www.stlouisfed.org/~/media/Files/PDFs/publications/pub_assets/pdf/re/2013/a/RE_Jan_2013.pdf

 

 

Why Do Companies Hold Cash?

Gianni La Cava and Callan Windsor

RDP 2016-03

 

https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/rdp/2016/pdf/rdp2016-03.pdf

 

 

MULTINATIONALS AND THE HIGH CASH HOLDINGS PUZZLE

Lee Pinkowitz

René M. Stulz Rohan Williamson

June 2012

 

http://www.nber.org/papers/w18120.pdf?new_window=1

 

 

 

The Determinants and Implications of Corporate Cash Holdings

Tim Opler, Lee Pinkowitz, Rene Stulz, Rohan Williamson

Issued in October 1997

http://www.nber.org/papers/w6234.pdf

 

 

WHY DO U.S. FIRMS HOLD SO MUCH MORE CASH THAN THEY USED TO?

Thomas W. Bates Kathleen M. Kahle Rene M. Stulz

September 2006

 

http://www.nber.org/papers/w12534.pdf

 

 

Why do firms hold so much cash? A tax-based explanation

C. Fritz Foley, Jay C. Hartzell, Sheridan Titman, and Garry Twite

October 2006

 

http://www.nber.org/papers/w12649.pdf

 

 

It’s Alive! Corporate Cash and Business Investment

Finn Poschmann

 

https://www.cdhowe.org/sites/default/files/attachments/research_papers/mixed/e-brief_181.pdf

 

 

Dead money

There are good reasons for hoarding cash.

John Lorinc

 

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/economy/dead-money/

 

 

IS “DEAD” MONEY ALIVE? A FIRM-LEVEL ANALYSIS OF CANADIAN NON-FINANCIAL LISTED CORPORATIONS CASH HOLDING AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURE BEHAVIOR

2014

IMF

 

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2014/cr1428.pdf

Short term Thinking in Investment Decisions of Businesses and Financial Markets

Short term Thinking in Investment Decisions of Businesses and Financial Markets

 

When companies buyback shares and pay dividends rather than investing in new capacity, it leads to low economic growth and low aggregate demand.

Central Banks respond by cutting interest rates.  Yet Businesses do not invest in new capacity.

Many studies attribute this to short term thinking dominant in corporate investment decisions.  Pressures from shareholders push corporate managers to be short term oriented.

Many economists and thinkers have criticized this recently as advanced economies are suffering from anemic growth.

Larry Summers has invoked Secular Stagnation.  He says one of the reason for Secular Stagnation is short term thinking.

Andy Haldane of Bank of England has criticized short term thinking as it prevents investments and causes low economic growth.

Key Terms:

  • Quarterly Capitalism
  • Secular Stagnation
  • Short Term Thinking
  • Low Economic Growth
  • Business Investments
  • Real Interest Rates
  • Monetary Policy
  • Income and Wealth Inequality
  • Aggregate Demand
  • Productive Capacity
  • Productivity growth
  • Long Term Investments
  • Share Buybacks
  • Dividends
  • Corporate Cash Pools

 

Capitalism for the Long Term

The near meltdown of the financial system and the ensuing Great Recession have been, and will remain, the defining issue for the current generation of executives. Now that the worst seems to be behind us, it’s tempting to feel deep relief—and a strong desire to return to the comfort of business as usual. But that is simply not an option. In the past three years we’ve already seen a dramatic acceleration in the shifting balance of power between the developed West and the emerging East, a rise in populist politics and social stresses in a number of countries, and significant strains on global governance systems. As the fallout from the crisis continues, we’re likely to see increased geopolitical rivalries, new international security challenges, and rising tensions from trade, migration, and resource competition. For business leaders, however, the most consequential outcome of the crisis is the challenge to capitalism itself.

That challenge did not just arise in the wake of the Great Recession. Recall that trust in business hit historically low levels more than a decade ago. But the crisis and the surge in public antagonism it unleashed have exacerbated the friction between business and society. On top of anxiety about persistent problems such as rising income inequality, we now confront understandable anger over high unemployment, spiraling budget deficits, and a host of other issues. Governments feel pressure to reach ever deeper inside businesses to exert control and prevent another system-shattering event.

My goal here is not to offer yet another assessment of the actions policymakers have taken or will take as they try to help restart global growth. The audience I want to engage is my fellow business leaders. After all, much of what went awry before and after the crisis stemmed from failures of governance, decision making, and leadership within companies. These are failures we can and should address ourselves.

In an ongoing effort that started 18 months ago, I’ve met with more than 400 business and government leaders across the globe. Those conversations have reinforced my strong sense that, despite a certain amount of frustration on each side, the two groups share the belief that capitalism has been and can continue to be the greatest engine of prosperity ever devised—and that we will need it to be at the top of its job-creating, wealth-generating game in the years to come. At the same time, there is growing concern that if the fundamental issues revealed in the crisis remain unaddressed and the system fails again, the social contract between the capitalist system and the citizenry may truly rupture, with unpredictable but severely damaging results.

Most important, the dialogue has clarified for me the nature of the deep reform that I believe business must lead—nothing less than a shift from what I call quarterly capitalism to what might be referred to as long-term capitalism. (For a rough definition of “long term,” think of the time required to invest in and build a profitable new business, which McKinsey research suggests is at least five to seven years.) This shift is not just about persistently thinking and acting with a next-generation view—although that’s a key part of it. It’s about rewiring the fundamental ways we govern, manage, and lead corporations. It’s also about changing how we view business’s value and its role in society.

There are three essential elements of the shift. First, business and finance must jettison their short-term orientation and revamp incentives and structures in order to focus their organizations on the long term. Second, executives must infuse their organizations with the perspective that serving the interests of all major stakeholders—employees, suppliers, customers, creditors, communities, the environment—is not at odds with the goal of maximizing corporate value; on the contrary, it’s essential to achieving that goal. Third, public companies must cure the ills stemming from dispersed and disengaged ownership by bolstering boards’ ability to govern like owners.

When making major decisions, Asians typically think in terms of at least 10 to 15 years. In the U.S. and Europe, nearsightedness is the norm.

None of these ideas, or the specific proposals that follow, are new. What is new is the urgency of the challenge. Business leaders today face a choice: We can reform capitalism, or we can let capitalism be reformed for us, through political measures and the pressures of an angry public. The good news is that the reforms will not only increase trust in the system; they will also strengthen the system itself. They will unleash the innovation needed to tackle the world’s grand challenges, pave the way for a new era of shared prosperity, and restore public faith in business.

1. Fight the Tyranny of Short-Termism

As a Canadian who for 25 years has counseled business, public sector, and nonprofit leaders across the globe (I’ve lived in Toronto, Sydney, Seoul, Shanghai, and now London), I’ve had a privileged glimpse into different societies’ values and how leaders in various cultures think. In my view, the most striking difference between East and West is the time frame leaders consider when making major decisions. Asians typically think in terms of at least 10 to 15 years. For example, in my discussions with the South Korean president Lee Myung-bak shortly after his election in 2008, he asked us to help come up with a 60-year view of his country’s future (though we settled for producing a study called National Vision 2020.) In the U.S. and Europe, nearsightedness is the norm. I believe that having a long-term perspective is the competitive advantage of many Asian economies and businesses today.

Myopia plagues Western institutions in every sector. In business, the mania over quarterly earnings consumes extraordinary amounts of senior time and attention. Average CEO tenure has dropped from 10 to six years since 1995, even as the complexity and scale of firms have grown. In politics, democracies lurch from election to election, with candidates proffering dubious short-term panaceas while letting long-term woes in areas such as economic competitiveness, health, and education fester. Even philanthropy often exhibits a fetish for the short term and the new, with grantees expected to become self-sustaining in just a few years.

Lost in the frenzy is the notion that long-term thinking is essential for long-term success. Consider Toyota, whose journey to world-class manufacturing excellence was years in the making. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s it endured low to nonexistent sales in the U.S.—and it even stopped exporting altogether for one bleak four-year period—before finally emerging in the following decades as a global leader. Think of Hyundai, which experienced quality problems in the late 1990s but made a comeback by reengineering its cars for long-term value—a strategy exemplified by its unprecedented introduction, in 1999, of a 10-year car warranty. That radical move, viewed by some observers as a formula for disaster, helped Hyundai quadruple U.S. sales in three years and paved the way for its surprising entry into the luxury market.

To be sure, long-term perspectives can be found in the West as well. For example, in 1985, in the face of fierce Japanese competition, Intel famously decided to abandon its core business, memory chips, and focus on the then-emerging business of microprocessors. This “wrenching” decision was “nearly inconceivable” at the time, says Andy Grove, who was then the company’s president. Yet by making it, Intel emerged in a few years on top of a new multi-billion-dollar industry. Apple represents another case in point. The iPod, released in 2001, sold just 400,000 units in its first year, during which Apple’s share price fell by roughly 25%. But the board took the long view. By late 2009 the company had sold 220 million iPods—and revolutionized the music business.

It’s fair to say, however, that such stories are countercultural. In the 1970s the average holding period for U.S. equities was about seven years; now it’s more like seven months. According to a recent paper by Andrew Haldane, of the Bank of England, such churning has made markets far more volatile and produced yawning gaps between corporations’ market price and their actual value. Then there are the “hyperspeed” traders (some of whom hold stocks for only a few seconds), who now account for 70% of all U.S. equities trading, by one estimate. In response to these trends, executives must do a better job of filtering input, and should give more weight to the views of investors with a longer-term, buy-and-hold orientation.

If they don’t, short-term capital will beget short-term management through a natural chain of incentives and influence. If CEOs miss their quarterly earnings targets, some big investors agitate for their removal. As a result, CEOs and their top teams work overtime to meet those targets. The unintended upshot is that they manage for only a small portion of their firm’s value. When McKinsey’s finance experts deconstruct the value expectations embedded in share prices, we typically find that 70% to 90% of a company’s value is related to cash flows expected three or more years out. If the vast majority of most firms’ value depends on results more than three years from now, but management is preoccupied with what’s reportable three months from now, then capitalism has a problem.

Roughly 70% of all U.S. equities trading is now done by “hyperspeed” traders—some of whom hold stocks for only a few seconds.

Some rightly resist playing this game. Unilever, Coca-Cola, and Ford, to name just a few, have stopped issuing earnings guidance altogether. Google never did. IBM has created five-year road maps to encourage investors to focus more on whether it will reach its long-term earnings targets than on whether it exceeds or misses this quarter’s target by a few pennies. “I can easily make my numbers by cutting SG&A or R&D, but then we wouldn’t get the innovations we need,” IBM’s CEO, Sam Palmisano, told us recently. Mark Wiseman, executive vice president at the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, advocates investing “for the next quarter century,” not the next quarter. And Warren Buffett has quipped that his ideal holding period is “forever.” Still, these remain admirable exceptions.

To break free of the tyranny of short-termism, we must start with those who provide capital. Taken together, pension funds, insurance companies, mutual funds, and sovereign wealth funds hold $65 trillion, or roughly 35% of the world’s financial assets. If these players focus too much attention on the short term, capitalism as a whole will, too.

In theory they shouldn’t, because the beneficiaries of these funds have an obvious interest in long-term value creation. But although today’s standard practices arose from the desire to have a defensible, measurable approach to portfolio management, they have ended up encouraging shortsightedness. Fund trustees, often advised by investment consultants, assess their money managers’ performance relative to benchmark indices and offer only short-term contracts. Those managers’ compensation is linked to the amount of assets they manage, which typically rises when short-term performance is strong. Not surprisingly, then, money managers focus on such performance—and pass this emphasis along to the companies in which they invest. And so it goes, on down the line.

Only 45% of those surveyed in the U.S. and the UK expressed trust in business. This stands in stark contrast to developing countries: For example, the figure is 61% in China, 70% in India, and 81% in Brazil.

As the stewardship advocate Simon Wong points out, under the current system pension funds deem an asset manager who returns 10% to have underperformed if the relevant benchmark index rises by 12%. Would it be unthinkable for institutional investors instead to live with absolute gains on the (perfectly healthy) order of 10%—especially if they like the approach that delivered those gains—and review performance every three or five years, instead of dropping the 10-percenter? Might these big funds set targets for the number of holdings and rates of turnover, at least within the “fundamental investing” portion of their portfolios, and more aggressively monitor those targets? More radically, might they end the practice of holding thousands of stocks and achieve the benefits of diversification with fewer than a hundred—thereby increasing their capacity to effectively engage with the businesses they own and improve long-term performance? Finally, could institutional investors beef up their internal skills and staff to better execute such an agenda? These are the kinds of questions we need to address if we want to align capital’s interests more closely with capitalism’s.

2. Serve Stakeholders, Enrich Shareholders

The second imperative for renewing capitalism is disseminating the idea that serving stakeholders is essential to maximizing corporate value. Too often these aims are presented as being in tension: You’re either a champion of shareholder value or you’re a fan of the stakeholders. This is a false choice.

The inspiration for shareholder-value maximization, an idea that took hold in the 1970s and 1980s, was reasonable: Without some overarching financial goal with which to guide and gauge a firm’s performance, critics feared, managers could divert corporate resources to serve their own interests rather than the owners’. In fact, in the absence of concrete targets, management might become an exercise in politics and stakeholder engagement an excuse for inefficiency. Although this thinking was quickly caricatured in popular culture as the doctrine of “greed is good,” and was further tarnished by some companies’ destructive practices in its name, in truth there was never any inherent tension between creating value and serving the interests of employees, suppliers, customers, creditors, communities, and the environment. Indeed, thoughtful advocates of value maximization have always insisted that it is long-term value that has to be maximized.

Capitalism’s founding philosopher voiced an even bolder aspiration. “All the members of human society stand in need of each others assistance, and are likewise exposed to mutual injuries,” Adam Smith wrote in his 1759 work, The Theory of Moral Sentiments. “The wise and virtuous man,” he added, “is at all times willing that his own private interest should be sacrificed to the public interest,” should circumstances so demand.

Smith’s insight into the profound interdependence between business and society, and how that interdependence relates to long-term value creation, still reverberates. In 2008 and again in 2010, McKinsey surveyed nearly 2,000 executives and investors; more than 75% said that environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives create corporate value in the long term. Companies that bring a real stakeholder perspective into corporate strategy can generate tangible value even sooner. (See the sidebar “Who’s Getting It Right?”)

Creating direct business value, however, is not the only or even the strongest argument for taking a societal perspective. Capitalism depends on public trust for its legitimacy and its very survival. According to the Edelman public relations agency’s just-released 2011 Trust Barometer, trust in business in the U.S. and the UK (although up from mid-crisis record lows) is only in the vicinity of 45%. This stands in stark contrast to developing countries: For example, the figure is 61% in China, 70% in India, and 81% in Brazil. The picture is equally bleak for individual corporations in the Anglo-American world, “which saw their trust rankings drop again last year to near-crisis lows,” says Richard Edelman.

How can business leaders restore the public’s trust? Many Western executives find that nothing in their careers has prepared them for this new challenge. Lee Scott, Walmart’s former CEO, has been refreshingly candid about arriving in the top job with a serious blind spot. He was plenty busy minding the store, he says, and had little feel for the need to engage as a statesman with groups that expected something more from the world’s largest company. Fortunately, Scott was a fast learner, and Walmart has become a leader in environmental and health care issues.

Tomorrow’s CEOs will have to be, in Joseph Nye’s apt phrase, “tri-sector athletes”: able and experienced in business, government, and the social sector. But the pervading mind-set gets in the way of building those leadership and management muscles. “Analysts and investors are focused on the short term,” one executive told me recently. “They believe social initiatives don’t create value in the near term.” In other words, although a large majority of executives believe that social initiatives create value in the long term, they don’t act on this belief, out of fear that financial markets might frown. Getting capital more aligned with capitalism should help businesses enrich shareholders by better serving stakeholders.

3. Act Like You Own the Place

As the financial sector’s troubles vividly exposed, when ownership is broadly fragmented, no one acts like he’s in charge. Boards, as they currently operate, don’t begin to serve as a sufficient proxy. All the Devils Are Here, by Bethany McLean and Joe Nocera, describes how little awareness Merrill Lynch’s board had of the firm’s soaring exposure to subprime mortgage instruments until it was too late. “I actually don’t think risk management failed,” Larry Fink, the CEO of the investment firm BlackRock, said during a 2009 debate about the future of capitalism, sponsored by the Financial Times. “I think corporate governance failed, because…the boards didn’t ask the right questions.”

What McKinsey has learned from studying successful family-owned companies suggests a way forward: The most effective ownership structure tends to combine some exposure in the public markets (for the discipline and capital access that exposure helps provide) with a significant, committed, long-term owner. Most large public companies, however, have extremely dispersed ownership, and boards rarely perform the single-owner-proxy role. As a result, CEOs too often listen to the investors (and members of the media) who make the most noise. Unfortunately, those parties tend to be the most nearsighted ones. And so the tyranny of the short term is reinforced.

The answer is to renew corporate governance by rooting it in committed owners and by giving those owners effective mechanisms with which to influence management. We call this ownership-based governance, and it requires three things:

Just 43% of the nonexecutive directors of public companies believe they significantly influence strategy. For this to change, board members must devote much more time to their roles.

More-effective boards.

In the absence of a dominant shareholder (and many times when there is one), the board must represent a firm’s owners and serve as the agent of long-term value creation. Even among family firms, the executives of the top-performing companies wield their influence through the board. But only 43% of the nonexecutive directors of public companies believe they significantly influence strategy. For this to change, board members must devote much more time to their roles. A government-commissioned review of the governance of British banks last year recommended an enormous increase in the time required of nonexecutive directors of banks—from the current average, between 12 and 20 days annually, to between 30 and 36 days annually. What’s especially needed is an increase in the informal time board members spend with investors and executives. The nonexecutive board directors of companies owned by private equity firms spend 54 days a year, on average, attending to the company’s business, and 70% of that time consists of informal meetings and conversations. Four to five days a month obviously give a board member much greater understanding and impact than the three days a quarter (of which two may be spent in transit) devoted by the typical board member of a public company.

Boards also need much more relevant experience. Industry knowledge—which four of five nonexecutive directors of big companies lack—helps boards identify immediate opportunities and reduce risk. Contextual knowledge about the development path of an industry—for example, whether the industry is facing consolidation, disruption from new technologies, or increased regulation—is highly valuable, too. Such insight is often obtained from experience with other industries that have undergone a similar evolution.

In addition, boards need more-effective committee structures—obtainable through, for example, the establishment of a strategy committee or of dedicated committees for large business units. Directors also need the resources to allow them to form independent views on strategy, risk, and performance (perhaps by having a small analytical staff that reports only to them). This agenda implies a certain professionalization of nonexecutive directorships and a more meaningful strategic partnership between boards and top management. It may not please some executive teams accustomed to boards they can easily “manage.” But given the failures of governance to date, it is a necessary change.

More-sensible CEO pay.

An important task of governance is setting executive compensation. Although 70% of board directors say that pay should be tied more closely to performance, CEO pay is too often structured to reward a leader simply for having made it to the top, not for what he or she does once there. Meanwhile, polls show that the disconnect between pay and performance is contributing to the decline in public esteem for business.

Companies should create real risk for executives.Some experts privately suggest mandating that new executives invest a year’s salary in the company.

CEOs and other executives should be paid to act like owners. Once upon a time we thought that stock options would achieve this result, but stock-option- based compensation schemes have largely incentivized the wrong behavior. When short-dated, options lead to a focus on meeting quarterly earnings estimates; even when long-dated (those that vest after three years or more), they can reward managers for simply surfing industry- or economy-wide trends (although reviewing performance against an appropriate peer index can help minimize free rides). Moreover, few compensation schemes carry consequences for failure—something that became clear during the financial crisis, when many of the leaders of failed institutions retired as wealthy people.

There will never be a one-size-fits-all solution to this complex issue, but companies should push for change in three key areas:

• They should link compensation to the fundamental drivers of long-term value, such as innovation and efficiency, not just to share price.

• They should extend the time frame for executive evaluations—for example, using rolling three-year performance evaluations, or requiring five-year plans and tracking performance relative to plan. This would, of course, require an effective board that is engaged in strategy formation.

• They should create real downside risk for executives, perhaps by requiring them to put some skin in the game. Some experts we’ve surveyed have privately suggested mandating that new executives invest a year’s salary in the company.

Redefined shareholder “democracy.”

The huge increase in equity churn in recent decades has spawned an anomaly of governance: At any annual meeting, a large number of those voting may soon no longer be shareholders. The advent of high-frequency trading will only worsen this trend. High churn rates, short holding periods, and vote-buying practices may mean the demise of the “one share, one vote” principle of governance, at least in some circumstances. Indeed, many large, top-performing companies, such as Google, have never adhered to it. Maybe it’s time for new rules that would give greater weight to long-term owners, like the rule in some French companies that gives two votes to shares held longer than a year. Or maybe it would make sense to assign voting rights based on the average turnover of an investor’s portfolio. If we want capitalism to focus on the long term, updating our notions of shareholder democracy in such ways will soon seem less like heresy and more like common sense.

While I remain convinced that capitalism is the economic system best suited to advancing the human condition, I’m equally persuaded that it must be renewed, both to deal with the stresses and volatility ahead and to restore business’s standing as a force for good, worthy of the public’s trust. The deficiencies of the quarterly capitalism of the past few decades were not deficiencies in capitalism itself—just in that particular variant. By rebuilding capitalism for the long term, we can make it stronger, more resilient, more equitable, and better able to deliver the sustainable growth the world needs. The three imperatives outlined above can be a start along this path and, I hope, a way to launch the conversation; others will have their own ideas to add.

The kind of deep-seated, systemic changes I’m calling for can be achieved only if boards, business executives, and investors around the world take responsibility for bettering the system they lead. Such changes will not be easy; they are bound to encounter resistance, and business leaders today have more than enough to do just to keep their companies running well. We must make the effort regardless. If capitalism emerges from the crisis vibrant and renewed, future generations will thank us. But if we merely paper over the cracks and return to our precrisis views, we will not want to read what the historians of the future will write. The time to reflect—and to act—is now.

 

Please see my other related posts.

Business Investments and Low Interest Rates

Mergers and Acquisitions – Long Term Trends and Waves

 

 

Key sources of Research:

Secular stagnation and low investment: Breaking the vicious cycle—a discussion paper

McKinsey

http://www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/europe/secular-stagnation-and-low-investment-breaking-the-vicious-cycle

Case Still Out on Whether Corporate Short-Termism Is a Problem

Larry Summers

http://larrysummers.com/2017/02/09/case-still-out-on-whether-corporate-short-termism-is-a-problem/

Where companies with a long-term view outperform their peers

McKinsey

http://www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/long-term-capitalism/where-companies-with-a-long-term-view-outperform-their-peers

How short-term thinking hampers long-term economic growth

FT

https://www.ft.com/content/8c868a98-b821-11e4-b6a5-00144feab7de

Anthony Hilton: Short-term thinking hits nations as a whole, not just big business

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/anthony-hilton-short-term-thinking-hits-nations-as-a-whole-not-just-big-business-10427294.html

Short-termism in business: causes, mechanisms and consequences

EY Poland Report

http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/EY_Poland_Report/$FILE/Short-termism_raport_EY.pdf

Overcoming the Barriers to Long-term Thinking in Financial Markets

Ruth Curran and Alice Chapple
Forum for the Future

https://www.forumforthefuture.org/sites/default/files/project/downloads/long-term-thinking-fpf-report-july-11.pdf

Understanding Short-Termism: Questions and Consequences

http://rooseveltinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Understanding-Short-Termism.pdf

Ending Short-Termism : An Investment Agenda for Growth

http://rooseveltinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Ending-Short-Termism.pdf

The Short Long

Speech by
Andrew G Haldane, Executive Director, Financial Stability, and Richard Davies

Brussels May 2011

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/archive/Documents/historicpubs/speeches/2011/speech495.pdf

Capitalism for the Long Term

Dominic Barton

From the March 2011 Issue

https://hbr.org/2011/03/capitalism-for-the-long-term

Quarterly capitalism: The pervasive effects of short-termism and austerity

https://currentlyunderdevelopment.wordpress.com/2016/05/10/quarterly-capitalism-the-pervasive-effects-of-short-termism-and-austerity/

Is Short-Term Behavior Jeopardizing the Future Prosperity of Business?

http://www.wlrk.com/docs/IsShortTermBehaviorJeopardizingTheFutureProsperityOfBusiness_CEOStrategicimplications.pdf

Andrew G Haldane: The short long

Speech by Mr Andrew Haldane, Executive Director, Financial Stability, and Mr Richard
Davies, Economist, Financial Institutions Division, Bank of England,
at the 29th Société
Universitaire Européene de Recherches Financières Colloquium,
Brussels, 11 May 2011

http://www.bis.org/review/r110511e.pdf

THE UNEASY CASE FOR FAVORING LONG-TERM SHAREHOLDERS

Jesse M. Fried

https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/17985223/Fried_795.pdf?sequence=1

The fringe economic theory that might get traction in the 2016 campaign

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/02/the-fringe-economic-theory-that-might-get-traction-in-the-2016-campaign/?utm_term=.932bc0b97758

FCLT Global:  Focusing Capital on the Long Term

Publications

http://www.fcltglobal.org/insights/publications

Finally, Evidence That Managing for the Long Term Pays Off

Dominic Barton

James Manyika

Sarah Keohane Williamson

February 07, 2017 UPDATED February 09, 2017

https://hbr.org/2017/02/finally-proof-that-managing-for-the-long-term-pays-off

Focusing Capital on the Long Term

Dominic Barton

Mark Wiseman

From the January–February 2014 Issue

Is Corporate Short-Termism Really a Problem? The Jury’s Still Out

Lawrence H. Summers

February 16, 2017

Yes, Short-Termism Really Is a Problem

Roger L. Martin

October 09, 2015

Long-Termism or Lemons

The Role of Public Policy in Promoting Long-Term Investments

By Marc Jarsulic, Brendan V. Duke, and Michael Madowitz October 2015

Center for American Progress

https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/21060054/LongTermism-reportB.pdf

 

Overcoming Short-termism: A Call for A More Responsible Approach to Investment and Business Management

https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2009/09/11/overcoming-short-termism-a-call-for-a-more-responsible-approach-to-investment-and-business-management/

 

 

Focusing capital on the Long Term

Jean-Hugues Monier – Senior Parter – McKinsey & Company

Princeton University – November 2016

http://jrc.princeton.edu/sites/jrc/files/jean-hugues_j._monier_slides_final.pdf

Business Investments and Low Interest Rates

Business Investments and Low Interest Rates

 

Longstanding IS-LM macroeconomic framework says that low interest rates should result in higher investment (as the cost of capital for investments declines).  However, in practice it is not true.  Business Investment also depends on many other factors such as projections for economic growth, market growth,  and Industry/sector growth (in which a company operates).  Low Interest rates also indicate low economic growth environment.  In a low growth environment, having poor projections of future cash flows from new investments, companies can not justify domestic Investments if financial hurdle rates are not met.  

Corporations also may have attractive options for investment outside the country.  Free Trade agreements allow for business investments to move overseas for getting access to growing markets or for cost cutting reasons such as labor costs.

Instead of Investing in new capacity, companies are paying dividends, and buying back shares to boost share prices and doing acquisitions. Companies are using their own cash retained from earnings to pay dividends, buyback shares, and in some cases doing acquisitions. Debt-financed acquisitions are done through raising capital from capital markets.

Companies do not need to grow by new fixed investments when they can grow by acquiring other companies. Organic growth is the process of business expansion by increased output, customer base expansion, or new product development, as opposed to mergers and acquisitions, which is inorganic growth. Organic growth typically excludes the impact of foreign exchange.  

There has been spectacular M&A activity in 2014, 2015 and is continuing in 2016.  

In low economic growth and low interest rate environment, it may make more sense to grow by inorganic growth.  The justification for M&A is usually the combination of reduced costs of doing business and increased revenue from greater market share.   After completion of acquisition, acquiring company management may decide to rationalize business units – closing inefficient plants, laying off employees, combining overlapping internal corporate services departments.  These decisions depend on the type of M&A strategy.

Economists need to pay attention to these trends as well.  At present, there is no discussion of M&A activity in Economic Policy discourse among Economists and Policy makers.

 

Wall street data charts showing trends in Business Investments

na-cm077_resear_16u_20161026161806na-ck534_bizinv_16u_20160615183306

 

From  Jeff Cox / CNBC.com November 17 2016

Fed Chair Janet Yellen and her colleagues for quite some time have been bemoaning the low levels of business investment.

Pressed Thursday to explain why this has been the case, the central bank chief told Congress she wasn’t sure, but she denied it had anything to do with the Fed’s cheap-money policies of the past eight years.

“It’s not clear in my mind why it is that investment spending has been as weak as it is,” she told the Joint Economic Committee. “Initially, we had an economy with a lot of excess capacity. Firms were clearly operating without enough sales to justify a need to invest in additional capacity, and more recently with the economy moving toward full employment, we would expect to see investment spending pick up, and it’s not obvious exactly why it hasn’t picked up.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., suggested that the fault may lie in what the Fed has done. Specifically, he pointed to the central bank’s quantitative easing measures that saw the Fed’s balance sheet surge to $4.5 trillion largely on three rounds of bond buying.

Faced with the uncertainty of returns from capital expenditures and the near-certainty of returns on assets like stocks and bonds during what Cassidy called “easy money” QE programs, businesses opted for the latter, he said.

“I wouldn’t agree that the Fed’s monetary policy has hampered business investment or been a negative factor,” Yellen responded. “I’m not aware of any evidence that suggests that it is.”

She explained that productivity has been on the decline since companies started reversing bare-bones employment levels during the financial crisis. However, that has not been met with business investment, in part because companies don’t believe it “will produce returns that justify those investments,” Yellen said.

 

From Moody.com

Moody’s: US non-financial corporates’ cash pile increases to $1.68 trillion, tech holding the lead

Global Credit Research – 20 May 2016

New York, May 20, 2016 — US non-financial companies rated by Moody’s held $1.68 trillion in cash at the end of 2015, up 1.8% from $1.65 trillion the year prior, Moody’s Investors Services says in a new report. The top 50 holders of cash account for $1.14 trillion of the total cash pile, and entry to the top 50 list now requires $6.12 billion in cash.

“The top four cash-heavy US industries remain technology, healthcare/pharmaceuticals, consumer products, and energy,” says Richard Lane, a Moody’s Senior Vice President. These four industries currently hold a record $1.3 trillion, or 77% of total corporate cash and have accounted for more than 72% of the total every year since 2007.

The top five cash holders are Apple, Microsoft, Google, Cisco Systems and Oracle, Moody’s says in “US Non-Financial Companies: Cash Pile Grows 1.8% to $1.68 Trillion; Tech Extends Lead Over Other Sectors.”

Apple held $215.7 billion in total cash for the period. The company has held the top spot as cash king since 2009.

“While the concentration of cash among the top-rated cash holders continues to grow, so too has the portion held by the technology sector, which accounted for a record 46% of total cash in 2015, up from 41% in 2014,” Lane says.

Moody’s expects the technology sector cash concentration will grind higher over the next year because of the sector’s strong cash flow generation and despite stronger returns of capital to shareholders. The technology sector generated 63% of the total rated non-financial free cash flow in 2015, up from 37% in 2007.

For the top 50, capital spending fell by 3% to $885 billion, and net share buybacks fell 7% to $269 billion. Dividends increased by 4% to a record high of $404 billion, while acquisition spending increased 43%, to a record $401 billion.

For the first time since 2012, cash coverage of aggregate debt maturities over the next five years fell below 100% to 93% at the end of 2015.

In 2016, Moody’s expects aggregate spending on capital investments, dividends, acquisitions and share buybacks to again approximate $1.9 trillion.

 

From Wall Street Journal

mi-cp973_divide_16u_20160603184210

 

From DealLogic

mw-dn118_ma_acq_20150602090958_mg

 

From M&A experts weigh in on deals for 2017

manda3manda2017

 

From  US M&A market on a high

us-ma-2015

From IMAA

usmabestusmabest2

 

Key ideas/issues for M & A:  

Why grow through M & A activities ?

  • Limited organic growth options
  • Need to address the transformation in the marketplace/existing business models
  • Availability of credit on favorable terms
  • Large Cash reserves/commitments
  • Shifting consumer demands
  • Improving Equity markets
  • Opportunities in emerging markets

What are concerns?

  • Slow growth environment
  • Lack of suitable targets
  • Record stock prices
  • Geopolitical risks
  • Others
  • Constrained Consumer Demand
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • Rising Interest Rates

 

 

Key terms:

  • Return on Investment (ROI)
  • Return on Invested Capital ( ROIC)
  • Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
  • Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC)
  • Economic Value added (EVA)
  • Return on Assets (ROA)
  • Return on Equity (ROE)
  • Net Present Value (NPV)
  • Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR)
  • Capital Expenditures ( CAPEX)
  • Corporate Savings Glut
  • Business Fixed Investments
  • Share Buybacks
  • DIvidends
  • Acquisitions
  • NAFTA
  • TPP
  • TTIP
  • International Investment Position (IIP)
  • Free Trade
  • Direct Investment Position (FDI)
  • Trade Flows
  • Current Account
  • Capital Account
  • Organic Growth
  • Inorganic Growth

 

 

Key Sources of Research:

 

Business Investment in the United States: Facts, Explanations, Puzzles, and Policies

Remarks by Jason Furman Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers

September 30, 2015

 

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/20150930_business_investment_in_the_united_states.pdf

http://www.progressivepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/2015.09.30-Jason-Furman_Business-Investment-in-US-Facts-Explanations-Puzzles-Policies.pdf

 

 

Firms’ Investment Decisions and Interest Rates

Kevin Lane and Tom Rosewall

http://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2015/jun/pdf/bu-0615-1.pdf

 

 

Investing when interest rates are low

By Timothy M. Koller, Jiri Maly, and Robert N. Palter

http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/investing-when-interest-rates-are-low

 

 

Are low-interest rates contributing to low business investment?

By Nick Bunker

http://equitablegrowth.org/equitablog/are-low-interest-rates-contributing-to-low-business-investment/

 

 

Why isn’t Investment More Sensitive to Interest Rates: Evidence from Surveys

Steve A. Sharpe and Gustavo A. Suarez

2014

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/feds/2014/files/201402r.pdf

 

 

Why Aren’t Low Rates Working? Blame Dividends

Since the Federal Reserve took rates to near zero, companies have boosted buybacks 194%

http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-arent-low-rates-working-blame-dividends-1465119005

 

 

Low Interest Rates Are Hurting Growth

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/10/04/low-interest-rates-are-hurting-growth/#5e9ccf813a2b

 

 

Secular Stagnation and Returns on Capital

Paul Gomme,  B. Ravikumar, Peter Rupert,

https://files.stlouisfed.org/research/publications/es/15/ES_19_2015-08-18.pdf

 

 

The Return to Capital and the Business Cycle

Gomme, Paul, B. Ravikumar, and Peter C. Rupert, 2006.

Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, Working Paper no. 06-03.

https://www.clevelandfed.org/en/newsroom-and-events/publications/working-papers/working-papers-archives/2006-working-papers/wp-0603-the-return-to-capital-and-the-business-cycle.aspx

 

 

Long-term investment, the cost of capital and the dividend and buyback puzzle

Adrian Blundell-Wignall and Caroline Roulet

https://www.oecd.org/finance/Long-term-investment_CapitalCost-dividend-buyback.pdf

 

 

The “Search for Yield” and Business Investment

By Jason M. Thomas

https://www.carlyle.com/sites/default/files/market-commentary/productivity_slowdown_may2016_final.pdf

 

 

Infrastructure versus other investments in the global economy and stagnation hypotheses: What do company data tell us?

Adrian Blundell-Wignall and Caroline Roulet*

https://www.oecd.org/investment/Infrastructure-versus-other-investments-Global-economy-Stagnation-hypotheses.pdf

 

 

(Why) Is investment weak?

Ryan Banerjee Jonathan Kearns Marco Lombardi

http://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1503g.pdf

 

 

The Fed Has Hurt Business Investment

by Michael Spence, Kevin Warsh

http://www.hoover.org/research/fed-has-hurt-business-investment

 

 

FRED data series on Savings and Investments

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/categories/112

 

 

Weak Business Investment, Lower Neutral Rate Impacting Each Other

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2160321-weak-business-investment-lower-neutral-rate-impacting-each-other/

 

 

The Corporate Saving Glut in the Aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis

Joseph W. Gruber and Steven B. Kamin

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/ifdp/2015/files/ifdp1150.pdf

 

 

Rising Intangible Capital, Shrinking Debt Capacity, and the US Corporate Savings Glut

Antonio Falato Dalida Kadyrzhanova Jae W. Sim

November 2012. This version: June 2013

http://www.cepr.org/sites/default/files/events/papers/5599_KADYRZHANOVA_Cover%20-%20Rising%20Intangible%20Capital,%20Shrinking%20Debt%20Capacity%20and%20the%20US%20Corporate%20Savings%20Glut.pdf

 

 

Corporate Profits and Business Fixed Investment: Why are Firms So Cautious about Investment?

Naoya Kato and Takuji Kawamoto

April 2016

https://www.boj.or.jp/en/research/wps_rev/rev_2016/data/rev16e02.pdf

 

 

The Evolution of Corporate Cash

John R. Graham
Mark T. Leary

Draft: February 2015

http://www.rhsmith.umd.edu/files/Documents/Departments/Finance/seminarspring2015/graham.pdf

 

 

Adverse Effects of Ultra-Loose Monetary Policies on Investment, Growth and Income Distribution

Andreas Hoffmann & Gunther Schnabl

http://www.savings-banks.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Savings%20and%20Investment%20During%20the%20Great%20Depression%20and%20the%20Recent%20Global%20Crisis.pdf

 

 

NAFTA at 20

AFL-CIO

http://www.aflcio.org/content/download/121921/3393031/March2014_NAFTA20_nb.pdf

 

 

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

 

M. Angeles Villarreal

Ian F. Fergusson

April 16, 2015

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42965.pdf

 

 

 

NAFTA Revisited

PIIE

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/NAFTA_Revisited_Text.pdf

 

Direct Investment Positions for 2015 Country and Industry Detail

 

By Derrick T. Jenniges and James J. Fetzer

July 2016

 

http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2016/07%20July/0716_direct_investment_positions.pdf

 

 

Activities of U.S. Multinational Enterprises in the United States and Abroad

Preliminary Results From the 2014 Benchmark Survey

 

http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2016/12%20December/1216_activities_of_us_multinational_enterprises.pdf

 

 

2015: A Merger Bonanza
Nearly $5 trillion worth of deals were announced last year. Why do so many big companies want team up?

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/01/2015-mergers-acquisitions/423096/

 

 

M&A experts weigh in on deals for 2017

https://info.kpmg.us/ma-survey-2017.html?gclid=Cj0KEQiAkO7CBRDeqJ_ahuiPrtEBEiQAbYupJaJUqUI61s1m-kFVDnT112-3ocH1SdVfcCxiBiNX614aAuvj8P8HAQ

 

 

 

The Federal Reserve’s Impact on the US M&A Market: An Empirical Examination

Sebastian v. Boetticher

Spring 2015

 

http://www.cob.calpoly.edu/undergrad/files/2015/09/Boetticher.pdf

 

 

M&A Statistics

IMAA offers extensive and up-to-date information, data, research on M&A and Mergers & Acquisitions statistics

https://imaa-institute.org/mergers-and-acquisitions-statistics/

 

 

Hearing: The Economic Outlook

Janet Yellen on November 16 2016 speaking at Joint Economic Committee

Listen/view at 1:33:00 her comments on Business Investments