🚀 go-pugleaf

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:

> On Wednesday, Xerox said that, after 115 years as an independent 
> business, it would combine operations with Fujifilm Holdings of 
> Japan. The deal signaled the end of a company that was once an 
> American corporate powerhouse. “Xerox is the poster child for 
> monopoly technology businesses that cannot make the transition 
> to a new generation of technology,” said David B. Yoffie, a 
> professor at the Harvard Business School. The move offers a 
> stark reminder that no matter how high a company may fly, it 
> is still vulnerable to the next big breakthrough. Xerox joins 
> once formidable tech companies like Kodak and BlackBerry that 
> lost the innovation footrace.
>
> full article at:
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/business/dealbook/xerox-fujifilm.html

GE Just Signaled The Next Crisis (And Nobody's Paying Attention)
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-30/ge-just-signaled-next-crisis-and-nobodys-paying-attention

Welch would regularly beat Wall Street's earnings estimates by a penny
or two. And he was named manager of the century by Fortune Magazine for
his ability to pump GE's stock.

And while Welch is lauded for his "six sigma" management, it seems his
real talent was using GE's many divisions to move assets around and
goose earnings to hit short-term numbers.

The creative accounting caught up with GE in 2009, when the company paid
$50 million to settle SEC allegations it had used improper accounting
methods to boost numbers in 2002 and 2003.

Among the strategies GE used to make its 2003 numbers was selling
railroad cars to banks, with side deals and verbal promises to assure
the banks they couldn't lose money on the deal.

Enron used the same trick in 1999 when it "sold" Nigerian barges to
Merrill Lynch, allowing the company to fake a $12 million profit.

GE's $31 billion pension nightmare
http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/18/investing/ge-pension-immelt-breakup/index.html?iid=EL

Not only does GE have the largest pension deficit among S&P 500
companies, that deficit is $11 billion worse than the next closest
company, according to Dow Jones S&P Indices. (The $31 billion figure is
from the end of 2016. Fresher numbers haven't been released.)

Age of Greed: The Triumph of Finance and the Decline of America, 1970 to
the Present
http://www.amazon.com/Age-Greed-Triumph-Financ…/…/B004DEPF6I

pg187/loc3667-70: When Welch took over GE in 1980, it was the ninth most
profitable company in the nation. Now it was first, second, or
third. Shareholder value reached $500 billion, more than any other
company in America. The stock price was Welch’s personal measure of
achievement, though he later denied it. The boom of the late 1990s on
balance sent the wrong message to American managers: cut costs rather
than innovate. Despite its appeal, In Search of Excellence had little
true staying power.
pg191/loc3754-60: In 1977, GE Capital, as it was later called, generated
$67 million in revenue with only seven thousand employees, while
appliances that year generated $100 million and required 47,000
workers. He hired better managers and supplied GE Credit with a lot of
capital, and he had built-in scale—meaning large size—due to GE’s assets
size and triple-A credit rating. In time, GE Capital became a
full-fledged bank, financing all kinds of commercial loans, issuing
mortgages and other consumer loans, and becoming a leader in
mortgage-backed securities. By the time Welch left in 2000, GE Capital’s
earnings had grown by some eighty times to well more than $5 billion,
while the number of its employees did not even double. It provided half
of GE’s profits.
pg192/loc3777-79: In a few brief sentences, Welch had defined a new age
for big business. He introduced short-run profit management to GE,
understanding that stock market investors trusted little so well as
rising profits every calendar quarter. It became the best indication of
a company’s quality, making it stand out in good times and bad.
pg199/loc3909-13: GE Capital also enabled GE to manage its quarterly
earnings, engaging in the last couple of weeks of every calendar quarter
in various trades that could push earnings up on the last day or two
before the quarter's end. It was an open secret on Wall Street that this
was how Welch consistently kept quarterly earnings rising for years at a
time. "Though earnings management is a no-no among good governance
types," wrote two CNNMoney financial editors, "the company has never
denied doing it, and GE Capital is the perfect mechanism."
pg200/loc3925-30: The CNNMoney writers got it slightly wrong. GE was not
exactly like the American economy. It was even more dependent on
financial services. In the early 2000s, GE was again riding a financial
wave, the subprime mortgage lending boom; it had even bought a subprime
mortgage broker. GE borrowed still more against equity to exploit the
remarkable opportunities, its triple-A rating giving it a major
competitive advantage. By 2008, the central weakness of the Welch
business strategy, its dependence on financial overspeculation, became
ominously clear. GE's profits plunged during the credit crisis and its
stock price fell by 60 percent. GE Capital, the main source of its
success for twenty-five years, now reported enormous losses
pg200/loc3935-41: He mostly stopped trying to create great new products,
hence the reduction in R&D. He took the heart out of his businesses, he
did not put it in, as he had always hoped to do. What made his strategy
possible, and fully shaped it, was the rising stock market--and the new
ideology that praised free markets even as they failed.

On Thursday, February 1, 2018 at 6:07:52 PM UTC-7, han...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> “Xerox is the poster child for 
> monopoly technology businesses that cannot make the transition 
> to a new generation of technology,” said David B. Yoffie, a 
> professor at the Harvard Business School.

I suppose that Xerox could, for example, have used some of the technology it had 
in its early laser printers like the 9700, and made a laser printer that was 
almost as cheap as the HP LaserJet, but which produced better quality output.

Presumably it was still selling faster and more expensive laser printers to 
corporate customers, and didn't want to undermine the market.

IBM, then, is perhaps an example of a company that protected its legacy 
mainframe business while not allowing that protection to prevent it from making 
money from other markets. Perhaps. But perhaps it just lucked out with the IBM 
PC, and in general it made the same mistakes Xerox did most of the time.

John Savard

On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 17:07:51 -0800 (PST), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, Xerox said that, after 115 years as an independent 
> business, it would combine operations with Fujifilm Holdings of 
> Japan. The deal signaled the end of a company that was once an 
> American corporate powerhouse. “Xerox is the poster child for 
> monopoly technology businesses that cannot make the transition 
> to a new generation of technology,” said David B. Yoffie, a 
> professor at the Harvard Business School. The move offers a 
> stark reminder that no matter how high a company may fly, it 
> is still vulnerable to the next big breakthrough. Xerox joins 
> once formidable tech companies like Kodak and BlackBerry that 
> lost the innovation footrace.
>
> full article at:
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/business/dealbook/xerox-fujifilm.html

Sad. Many great US pioneers in computer technology were recently sold to
foreigners. Bell Labs became French (Alcatel-Lucent) in 2006, now Finnish
(Nokia). They're all finished. :-(

Other US companies went abroad recently (say last 30 years)?
-- 
Andreas
You know you are a redneck if
an expired license plate means another decoration for your living room wall.

Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 17:07:51 -0800 (PST), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> 
>> On Wednesday, Xerox said that, after 115 years as an independent 
>> business, it would combine operations with Fujifilm Holdings of 
>> Japan. The deal signaled the end of a company that was once an 
>> American corporate powerhouse. “Xerox is the poster child for 
>> monopoly technology businesses that cannot make the transition 
>> to a new generation of technology,” said David B. Yoffie, a 
>> professor at the Harvard Business School. The move offers a 
>> stark reminder that no matter how high a company may fly, it 
>> is still vulnerable to the next big breakthrough. Xerox joins 
>> once formidable tech companies like Kodak and BlackBerry that 
>> lost the innovation footrace.
>> 
>> full article at:
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/business/dealbook/xerox-fujifilm.html
> 
> Sad. Many great US pioneers in computer technology were recently sold to
> foreigners. Bell Labs became French (Alcatel-Lucent) in 2006, now Finnish
> (Nokia). They're all finished. :-(
> 
> Other US companies went abroad recently (say last 30 years)?

Honeywell -> Bull

-- 
Pete

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> writes:

> On Thursday, February 1, 2018 at 6:07:52 PM UTC-7, han...@bbs.cpcn.com
> wrote:

>> "Xerox is the poster child for monopoly technology businesses that cannot
>> make the transition to a new generation of technology," said David B.
>> Yoffie, a professor at the Harvard Business School.

> I suppose that Xerox could, for example, have used some of the technology it
> had in its early laser printers like the 9700, and made a laser printer that
> was almost as cheap as the HP LaserJet, but which produced better quality
> output.

> Presumably it was still selling faster and more expensive laser printers to
> corporate customers, and didn't want to undermine the market.

> IBM, then, is perhaps an example of a company that protected its legacy
> mainframe business while not allowing that protection to prevent it from
> making money from other markets. Perhaps. But perhaps it just lucked out with
> the IBM PC, and in general it made the same mistakes Xerox did most of the
> time.

Then there's that whole "take IBM on head to head inthe computer market" which
cost Xerox dearly in the 1970s.  No corporation can sustain the kind of loss
which Xerox did and remain top dog in its core industry.

-- 
Rich Alderson					  ne...@alderson.users.panix.com
      Audendum est, et veritas investiganda; quam etiamsi non assequamur,
	  omnino tamen proprius, quam nunc sumus, ad eam perveniemus.
									--Galen

On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 5:49:37 PM UTC-7, Rich Alderson wrote:
 
> Then there's that whole "take IBM on head to head inthe computer market" which
> cost Xerox dearly in the 1970s.  No corporation can sustain the kind of loss
> which Xerox did and remain top dog in its core industry.

And now Oracle is doing the same thing, but against what's left of IBM.

John Savard

On Fri, 2 Feb 2018 15:25:34 -0700, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 17:07:51 -0800 (PST), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Wednesday, Xerox said that, after 115 years as an independent 
>>> business, it would combine operations with Fujifilm Holdings of 
>>> Japan. The deal signaled the end of a company that was once an 
>>> American corporate powerhouse. “Xerox is the poster child for 
>>> monopoly technology businesses that cannot make the transition 
>>> to a new generation of technology,” said David B. Yoffie, a 
>>> professor at the Harvard Business School. The move offers a 
>>> stark reminder that no matter how high a company may fly, it 
>>> is still vulnerable to the next big breakthrough. Xerox joins 
>>> once formidable tech companies like Kodak and BlackBerry that 
>>> lost the innovation footrace.
>>> 
>>> full article at:
>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/business/dealbook/xerox-fujifilm.html
>> 
>> Sad. Many great US pioneers in computer technology were recently sold to
>> foreigners. Bell Labs became French (Alcatel-Lucent) in 2006, now Finnish
>> (Nokia). They're all finished. :-(
>> 
>> Other US companies went abroad recently (say last 30 years)?
>
>Honeywell -> Bull

Honeywell sold their informations systems division to Bull.  Honeywell
however is now part of Allied Signal, which adopted the name and is
still a huge American company.

On 2018-02-03, J  Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2018 15:25:34 -0700, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 17:07:51 -0800 (PST), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Wednesday, Xerox said that, after 115 years as an independent 
>>>> business, it would combine operations with Fujifilm Holdings of 
>>>> Japan. The deal signaled the end of a company that was once an 
>>>> American corporate powerhouse. “Xerox is the poster child for 
>>>> monopoly technology businesses that cannot make the transition 
>>>> to a new generation of technology,” said David B. Yoffie, a 
>>>> professor at the Harvard Business School. The move offers a 
>>>> stark reminder that no matter how high a company may fly, it 
>>>> is still vulnerable to the next big breakthrough. Xerox joins 
>>>> once formidable tech companies like Kodak and BlackBerry that 
>>>> lost the innovation footrace.
>>>> 
>>>> full article at:
>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/business/dealbook/xerox-fujifilm.html
>>> 
>>> Sad. Many great US pioneers in computer technology were recently sold to
>>> foreigners. Bell Labs became French (Alcatel-Lucent) in 2006, now Finnish
>>> (Nokia). They're all finished. :-(
>>> 
>>> Other US companies went abroad recently (say last 30 years)?
>>
>>Honeywell -> Bull
>
> Honeywell sold their informations systems division to Bull.  Honeywell
> however is now part of Allied Signal, which adopted the name and is
> still a huge American company.
>


There have been examples of US copanies recently buying Irish
companies and moving the company name to Ireland. I think the process is
called 'reversing into'. The whole thing is a spurious tax exercise.


-- 
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man

On 3 Feb 2018 09:13:32 GMT, ma...@mail.com wrote:

>On 2018-02-03, J  Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Feb 2018 15:25:34 -0700, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 17:07:51 -0800 (PST), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Wednesday, Xerox said that, after 115 years as an independent 
>>>>> business, it would combine operations with Fujifilm Holdings of 
>>>>> Japan. The deal signaled the end of a company that was once an 
>>>>> American corporate powerhouse. ?Xerox is the poster child for 
>>>>> monopoly technology businesses that cannot make the transition 
>>>>> to a new generation of technology,? said David B. Yoffie, a 
>>>>> professor at the Harvard Business School. The move offers a 
>>>>> stark reminder that no matter how high a company may fly, it 
>>>>> is still vulnerable to the next big breakthrough. Xerox joins 
>>>>> once formidable tech companies like Kodak and BlackBerry that 
>>>>> lost the innovation footrace.
>>>>> 
>>>>> full article at:
>>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/business/dealbook/xerox-fujifilm.html
>>>> 
>>>> Sad. Many great US pioneers in computer technology were recently sold to
>>>> foreigners. Bell Labs became French (Alcatel-Lucent) in 2006, now Finnish
>>>> (Nokia). They're all finished. :-(
>>>> 
>>>> Other US companies went abroad recently (say last 30 years)?
>>>
>>>Honeywell -> Bull
>>
>> Honeywell sold their informations systems division to Bull.  Honeywell
>> however is now part of Allied Signal, which adopted the name and is
>> still a huge American company.
>>
>
>
>There have been examples of US copanies recently buying Irish
>companies and moving the company name to Ireland. I think the process is
>called 'reversing into'. The whole thing is a spurious tax exercise.

"Reverse inversion".  What's "spurious" about it?  US corporate taxes
were ludicrously high--they are less so now but still US companies are
taxed on foreign sales at a much higher level than non-US companies.

J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> writes:
> "Reverse inversion".  What's "spurious" about it?  US corporate taxes
> were ludicrously high--they are less so now but still US companies are
> taxed on foreign sales at a much higher level than non-US companies.

starting in 80s, large companies started to create separate subsidiary
corporations where they could book profits. posterchild were airlines
where they set up ticket selling as separate corporate subsidiary.
Airline operations (with 90% of employees) were operating at break-even
or loss ... and all the profit was booked in the ticket sales
corporation. airline operations could be operating at substantial
loss, even tho the parent company was operating at substantial profit
(ticket sales where all the profit was booked more than offset
losses). Later they could even declare bankruptcy for airline operations
and dump the employee pension plans on the gov.

after turn of century, congress seemed to further loosen definition of
separate corporation.  posterchild is large US equipment maker that
manufactures in the US, sells and delivers to companies in the US. They
sent up a distriborship in country where they have negotiated trivial
tax rate. They transfer the (made in the US) equipment to the offshore
distriborship books at cost, which then "sells" to US customers. All
profit is booked in the offshore distriborship even tho equipment is
made in the US, sold to US customers and delivered to US customers.

even tho corparate tax rate was 35%, many large US corporations are
paying 5% or less (or even declaring loss) ... so effective overall
corporate tax revenue was more like 11%.

Gimmick hasn't only been used in US. Many countries have found that
Apple has sent things up that tax revenue as percent of sales in that
country is small single digits (foreign sales issue is mostly
obfuscation and misdirection).

Apple's $85 million tax bill is a fraction of its almost $8 billion
revenue
http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/apples-85-million-tax-bill-is-a-fraction-of-its-almost-8-billion-revenue-20160126-gmej0z.html

Apple paid $85 million in Australian income tax last year, despite
making almost $8 billion in local revenue, accounts filed with the
corporate regulator show.

...

Apple's double Irish

Apple has been accused of using a "double Irish sandwich with Dutch
associations" structure that allows it to route profits through Ireland
and significantly reduce tax.

... snip ...

aka 1% ... process regularly used around the world.


.....

posts mentioning tax evasion, tax havens, tax avoidance
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#tax.evasion

lots of leaks ... but not solely limited to tax evasion, tax
advoidance, etc
https://www.icij.org/
luxembourg
https://www.icij.org/investigations/luxembourg-leaks/
panama papers
https://panamapapers.icij.org/
paradise papers
https://www.icij.org/investigations/paradise-papers/

recent GE references:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018.html#19 In Praise of Hierarchy
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018.html#108 GE's $31 billion pension nightmare

financialization destroying US corporate culture starting late 70s &
early 80s
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018.html#25 Trump's Infrastructure Plan Is Actually Pence's--And It's All About Privatization
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018.html#52 How a Misfit Group of Computer Geeks and English Majors Transformed Wall Street
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018.html#104 Tax Cut for Stock Buybacks

On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 8:41:46 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
  
> > Then there's that whole "take IBM on head to head inthe computer market" which
> > cost Xerox dearly in the 1970s.  No corporation can sustain the kind of loss
> > which Xerox did and remain top dog in its core industry.
> 
> And now Oracle is doing the same thing, but against what's left of IBM.

Is IBM in trouble today?

Last I heard, it was buying back a lot of its stock.  That inflates
the earnings per share since, since there are fewer shares, but it
is a misleading indicator.  

It seems (someone else could explain better) seems to evolved into
a consulting company as opposed to a hardware company.  It still
obviously makes the Z series, but it sold off so much of its
hardware line.  Does it still have the economy of scale to support
intensive research to keep knocking out improvements to hardware,
as well as staff to maintain the complex operating systems?

I think Unisys tried that route and while Unisys is still around,
isn't it today a tiny fraction of what it once was (especially
considering its parents)?

Comments from anyone familiar with the current situation appreciated!

On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 1:53:00 PM UTC-5, Lynn Wheeler wrote:

 
> starting in 80s, large companies started to create separate subsidiary
> corporations where they could book profits. posterchild were airlines
> where they set up ticket selling as separate corporate subsidiary.

Even earlier than that--the Western Union Telegraph Company
reorganized in the 1960s to sell computer services from an
unregulated subsidiary.  The railroads had for years had 
real estate and other businesses.

The Penn Central had numerous holdings.  Ironically, it was
criticized for that, critics saying the holdings were a
distraction to management and disrupted railroad operations.
Yet actually most holdings were profitable and helped subsidize
the money-losing railroad.

(I interviewed at a truck-body/leasing company originally
created by the PRR and then owned by Conrail.  They had a
System/3.)

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> Even earlier than that--the Western Union Telegraph Company
> reorganized in the 1960s to sell computer services from an
> unregulated subsidiary.  The railroads had for years had 
> real estate and other businesses.
>
> The Penn Central had numerous holdings.  Ironically, it was
> criticized for that, critics saying the holdings were a
> distraction to management and disrupted railroad operations.
> Yet actually most holdings were profitable and helped subsidize
> the money-losing railroad.
>
> (I interviewed at a truck-body/leasing company originally
> created by the PRR and then owned by Conrail.  They had a
> System/3.)

there were previous separate cooperations ... but starting around 1980
there was specific efforts to move profit out of large human intensive
operations ... in part as union negotiating tactic (later also as tax
avoidence). They separated airline operations from ticket sales ... in
such a way that airline operations showed little or no profit ... and
all the profit was booked in a totally separate corporation (where
previously that profit had been part of airline operations). The selling
of a passenger ticket to take an airlline operations flight had all the
profit ... and actual operation of flying was showing little or no
profit.

it wasn't creating a new subsidiary for a totally different business
that operated as a profit to subsidize money loosing business. It was
moving the profit from airline operations into a separate corporation
that sold a ticket for a person to use airline operations.

It would be more akin to creating a company in Ireland for charging for
railroad freight shipped in the united states. customers would pay the
Irish company for US railroad shipping ... the Irish company would keep
all the profit ... and pass on trivial amount to the US railroad that
actually moves the freight (resulting in the US railroad operating at a
loss ... and the billing for US railroad shipping was handled in another
country and operated at large profit).

I've mentioned periodically the 2008 annual economists conference
and economic roundtable discussing advantages of flattax ... eliminating
all tax loopholes and reducing tax rate ... while remaining tax
revenue neutral (same amount of taxes being collected). The big
advantage is it eliminates the enormous congressional graft and
corruption associated with selling tax loopholes and contributes
significantly to congress being considered the most corrupt institution
on earth.

They commented (in 2008) that Ireland is one of the largest operations
lobbying against such a change to US tax laws (and would radically cut
the payments to members of congress). It is part of one of the worst
thing that happened to the country was financialization and financial
innovation that saw big uptic around 1980.

past posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#tax.evasion

My understanding is that IBM is still a very large company, and that it is doing well.

Even so, it is still a mere shadow of what it once was.

On 2018-02-03, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> Is IBM in trouble today?

<snip>

> Does it still have the economy of scale to support
> intensive research to keep knocking out improvements to hardware,

<sarcasm>
You mean buying out or sabotaging competing hardware companies?
</sarcasm>

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

On 2018-02-04, Anne & Lynn Wheeler <ly...@garlic.com> wrote:

> I've mentioned periodically the 2008 annual economists conference
> and economic roundtable discussing advantages of flattax ... eliminating
> all tax loopholes and reducing tax rate ... while remaining tax
> revenue neutral (same amount of taxes being collected). The big
> advantage is it eliminates the enormous congressional graft and
> corruption associated with selling tax loopholes

FSVO "advantage".

> and contributes significantly to congress being considered the most
> corrupt institution on earth.

In other words, definitely _not_ an advantage to Congresscritters.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

Anne & Lynn Wheeler <ly...@garlic.com> writes:
> GE Just Signaled The Next Crisis (And Nobody's Paying Attention)
> https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-30/ge-just-signaled-next-crisis-and-nobodys-paying-attention
>
> Welch would regularly beat Wall Street's earnings estimates by a penny
> or two. And he was named manager of the century by Fortune Magazine for
> his ability to pump GE's stock.
>
> And while Welch is lauded for his "six sigma" management, it seems his
> real talent was using GE's many divisions to move assets around and
> goose earnings to hit short-term numbers.
>
> The creative accounting caught up with GE in 2009, when the company paid
> $50 million to settle SEC allegations it had used improper accounting
> methods to boost numbers in 2002 and 2003.
>
> Among the strategies GE used to make its 2003 numbers was selling
> railroad cars to banks, with side deals and verbal promises to assure
> the banks they couldn't lose money on the deal.
>
> Enron used the same trick in 1999 when it "sold" Nigerian barges to
> Merrill Lynch, allowing the company to fake a $12 million profit.
>
> GE's $31 billion pension nightmare
> http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/18/investing/ge-pension-immelt-breakup/index.html?iid=EL

on going financialization and financial innovation over last 30yrs

How GE Went From American Icon to Astonishing Mess; Famous for great
management, General Electric is staring down a plunging share price, a
federal investigation, and possible breakup.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-02-01/how-ge-went-from-american-icon-to-astonishing-mess

other recent refs on financialization
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017i.html#1 Any definitive reference for
why the PDP-11 was little-endian?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017i.html#71 When Working From Home Doesn't Work
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018.html#25 Trump's Infrastructure Plan Is Actually Pence's--And It's All About Privatization

J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> writes:
>On 3 Feb 2018 09:13:32 GMT, ma...@mail.com wrote:
>

>>There have been examples of US copanies recently buying Irish
>>companies and moving the company name to Ireland. I think the process is
>>called 'reversing into'. The whole thing is a spurious tax exercise.
>
>"Reverse inversion".  What's "spurious" about it?  US corporate taxes
>were ludicrously high

Nonsense.   US Companies were rolling in dough before the
manifestly foolish tax plan was passed, which will never
be paid for in our children's lifetime.

On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 9:31:46 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> >"Reverse inversion".  What's "spurious" about it?  US corporate taxes
> >were ludicrously high
> 
> Nonsense.   US Companies were rolling in dough before the
> manifestly foolish tax plan was passed, which will never
> be paid for in our children's lifetime.

+1

On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 13:37:35 -0800 (PST), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

>On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 9:31:46 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> >"Reverse inversion".  What's "spurious" about it?  US corporate taxes
>> >were ludicrously high
>> 
>> Nonsense.   US Companies were rolling in dough before the
>> manifestly foolish tax plan was passed, which will never
>> be paid for in our children's lifetime.
>
>+1

Spoken like true knee-jerk liberals.

Anne & Lynn Wheeler <ly...@garlic.com> writes:
> I've mentioned periodically the 2008 annual economists conference
> and economic roundtable discussing advantages of flattax ... eliminating
> all tax loopholes and reducing tax rate ... while remaining tax
> revenue neutral (same amount of taxes being collected). The big
> advantage is it eliminates the enormous congressional graft and
> corruption associated with selling tax loopholes and contributes
> significantly to congress being considered the most corrupt institution
> on earth.

recent item: Unrigging the System
http://www.pogo.org/blog/2018/02/unrigging-the-system.html

POGO
http://www.pogo.org/

Our Work - Government Accountability
http://www.pogo.org/our-work/government-accountability.html
Our work - Open Government
http://www.pogo.org/our-work/open-government.html
Our Work - Whistleblower Protections
http://www.pogo.org/our-work/whistleblower-protections.html

other POGO efforts: Straus Military Reform Project
http://www.pogo.org/straus/

Kicking the F-35’s Tires
http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/military-industrial-circus/2018/kicking-the-f-35s-tires.html

J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> writes:
>On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 13:37:35 -0800 (PST), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>>On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 9:31:46 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>>> >"Reverse inversion".  What's "spurious" about it?  US corporate taxes
>>> >were ludicrously high
>>> 
>>> Nonsense.   US Companies were rolling in dough before the
>>> manifestly foolish tax plan was passed, which will never
>>> be paid for in our children's lifetime.
>>
>>+1
>
>Spoken like true knee-jerk liberals.

Wow, you can't support your statement so you devolve to namecalling.

Scott Lurndal wrote:
> J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> writes:
>>On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 13:37:35 -0800 (PST), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 9:31:46 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>
>>>> >"Reverse inversion".  What's "spurious" about it?  US corporate taxes
>>>> >were ludicrously high
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense.   US Companies were rolling in dough before the
>>>> manifestly foolish tax plan was passed, which will never
>>>> be paid for in our children's lifetime.
>>>
>>>+1
>>
>>Spoken like true knee-jerk liberals.
>
> Wow, you can't support your statement so you devolve to namecalling.

A lot of that money was just sitting overseas collecting dust and interest.
Now some companies are moving it back to the States using it for
infrastructure and distributions to employees (which is taxed as income--
so part of it is ending up in the Federal coffers).

/BAH

On 2018-02-06, jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote:
> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 13:37:35 -0800 (PST), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 9:31:46 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> >"Reverse inversion".  What's "spurious" about it?  US corporate taxes
>>>>> >were ludicrously high
>>>>>
>>>>> Nonsense.   US Companies were rolling in dough before the
>>>>> manifestly foolish tax plan was passed, which will never
>>>>> be paid for in our children's lifetime.
>>>>
>>>>+1
>>>
>>>Spoken like true knee-jerk liberals.
>>
>> Wow, you can't support your statement so you devolve to namecalling.
>
> A lot of that money was just sitting overseas collecting dust and interest.
> Now some companies are moving it back to the States using it for
> infrastructure and distributions to employees (which is taxed as income--
> so part of it is ending up in the Federal coffers).
>
> /BAH

++1.


-- 
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man

jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 13:37:35 -0800 (PST), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 9:31:46 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> >"Reverse inversion".  What's "spurious" about it?  US corporate taxes
>>>>> >were ludicrously high
>>>>>
>>>>> Nonsense.   US Companies were rolling in dough before the
>>>>> manifestly foolish tax plan was passed, which will never
>>>>> be paid for in our children's lifetime.
>>>>
>>>>+1
>>>
>>>Spoken like true knee-jerk liberals.
>>
>> Wow, you can't support your statement so you devolve to namecalling.
>
>A lot of that money was just sitting overseas collecting dust and interest.
>Now some companies are moving it back to the States using it for
>infrastructure and distributions to employees (which is taxed as income--
>so part of it is ending up in the Federal coffers).

Cite?

Many (Most?) CEO's have indicated they'll return the cash to shareholders rather
than invest in plant or people.   There obviously will be exceptions by
either altrusistic CEOS (one in 10000) or those currying favor from the
idiot-in-chief.

scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
> Many (Most?) CEO's have indicated they'll return the cash to shareholders rather
> than invest in plant or people.   There obviously will be exceptions by
> either altrusistic CEOS (one in 10000) or those currying favor from the
> idiot-in-chief.

Corporations Say Publicly They'll Pocket the Tax Cut, But Republicans
Aren't Listening
https://theintercept.com/2017/12/19/tax-bill-corporate-cut-stock-buyback-republican/
Share buyback machine now in overdrive -- dropping a strong hint at
what CEOs plan to do with tax savings
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/share-buybacks-spike-dropping-a-strong-hint-at-what-ceos-plan-to-do-with-tax-savings-2017-12-08
How Much Can Buybacks Rise on Tax Cuts? This Estimate Says 70%
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-03/how-much-can-buybacks-rise-on-tax-cuts-this-estimate-says-70
US firms will now focus on stock buybacks after tax cuts, David
Rubenstein says
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/24/us-firms-will-now-focus-on-stock-buybacks-after-tax-cuts-david-rubenstein-says.html

trivia: what company did David Rubenstein found? hint: what company
did the former president of AMEX go to after leaving as CEO of IBM?
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/10/barbarians-capitol-private-equity-public-enemy/

Home Depot updates on tax bill impact
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3325245-home-depot-updates-tax-bill-impact
The Home Depot Awards Hourly Associates a One-Time Tax Reform Bonus;
Comments on Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017
https://seekingalpha.com/pr/17056151-home-depot-awards-hourly-associates-one-time-tax-reform-bonus-comments-tax-cuts-jobs-act-2017
Announces Accelerated Business Investment Plan and $15 Billion Share
Repurchase Authorization
http://ir.homedepot.com/news-releases/2017/12-06-2017-110035522

Home Depot sets new $15 billion stock buyback program, affirms 2017 outlook
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/home-depot-sets-new-15-billion-stock-buyback-program-affirms-2017-outlook-2017-12-06
Home Depot sets $15 billion share buyback, investment plan
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-home-depot-outlook-investor-day/home-depot-sets-15-billion-share-buyback-investment-plan-idUSKBN1E01D9
Home Depot Gives Investors a $15 Billion Christmas Gift
https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/12/10/home-depot-gives-investors-a-15-billion-christmas.aspx
Home Depot to Launch $15 Billion Share Buyback Program
https://www.wsj.com/articles/home-depot-to-launch-15-billion-share-buyback-program-1512560836

also the Home Depot bonus announcements said "up to $1000" for
associates ... so the actual total bonus expense could be much less
than $385M ($1000 for 385K employees), Even at $385M is less than 3%
of $15B buyback

The Home Depot Awards Hourly Associates a One-Time Tax Reform Bonus;
Comments on Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017
http://ir.homedepot.com/news-releases/2018/01-25-2018-130246180

IBM Asian Revenues Crash, Adjusted Earnings Beat On Tax Rate Fudge; Debt
Rises 20% To Fund Stock Buybacks
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-21/ibm-asian-revenues-crash-adjusted-earnings-beat-tax-rate-fudge-debt-rises-20-fund-st
New IBM Buyback Plan Is For Over 10 Percent Of Its Stock
http://247wallst.com/technology-3/2013/10/29/new-ibm-buyback-plan-is-for-over-10-percent-of-its-stock/
The company has represented that its dividends and share repurchases
have come to a total of over $159 billion since 2000.

quote attributable to Volcker from Confidence Men: Wall Street,
Washington, and the Education of a President
http://www.amazon.com/Confidence-Men-Washington-Education-ebook/dp/B0089LOKKS

pg290:

Well, I said, 'The trouble with the United States recently is we spent
several decades not producing many civil engineers and producing a
huge number of financial engineers. And the result is s**tty bridges
and a s**tty financial system!'

... snip ...

Bad Ideas; Reknowned economist James K. Galbraith, one of our expert
panelists, pulls no punches in talking about the damage wrought by
financial innovation
https://www.gfmag.com/magazine/june-2017/bad-ideas
The Economist's Take on Financial Innovation
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/02/satyajit-das-pravda-the-economist%E2%80%99s-take-on-financial-innovation.html

The Real Reason Wages Have Stagnated: Our Economy Is Optimized For
Financialization
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-08/real-reason-wages-have-stagnated-our-economy-optimized-financialization
The Limping Middle Class
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/opinion/sunday/jobs-will-follow-a-strengthening-of-the-middle-class.html
slouching towards 3rd world country status and return of the robber
barons.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/09/04/opinion/04reich-graphic.html?ref=sunday
How GE, GM, Coca-Cola And Kodak Put Shareholders Ahead Of Employees
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2017/06/29/how-ge-gm-coca-cola-kodak-put-shareholders-ahead-of-employees/
from here
http://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/

this has HD buying back 1/3rd of its stock over the last 10yrs ... not
quite as egregious as IBM
http://www.vuru.co/analysis/HD/dividendsBuybacks
Buyback binge is going strong, but here is why they are not the
solution
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/21/buyback-binge-is-going-strong-but-here-is-why-they-are-not-the-solution.html

Home Depot is part of a select group of companies I call "buyback
monsters," companies that have bought back more than 25 percent of
their shares since 2000.

... snip ...

Stockman, 80s budget director, takes credit for accelerating SS
contribution increases and (double) taxing SS benefits ... so the
money could be used for DOD ... Great Deformation
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Deformation-Corruption-Capitalism-America/dp/1586489127/

pg464/loc9995-10000:

IBM was not the born-again growth machine trumpeted by the mob of Wall
Street momo traders. It was actually a stock buyback contraption on
steroids. During the five years ending in fiscal 2011, the company
spent a staggering $67 billion repurchasing its own shares, a figure
that was equal to 100 percent of its net income.

pg465/10014-17:

Total shareholder distributions, including dividends, amounted to $82
billion, or 122 percent, of net income over this five-year
period. Likewise, during the last five years IBM spent less on capital
investment than its depreciation and amortization charges, and also
shrank its constant dollar spending for research and development by
nearly 2 percent annually.

... snip ...

IBM Asian Revenues Crash, Adjusted Earnings Beat On Tax Rate Fudge;
Debt Rises 20% To Fund Stock Buybacks
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-21/ibm-asian-revenues-crash-adjusted-earnings-beat-tax-rate-fudge-debt-rises-20-fund-st
New IBM Buyback Plan Is For Over 10 Percent Of Its Stock
http://247wallst.com/technology-3/2013/10/29/new-ibm-buyback-plan-is-for-over-10-percent-of-its-stock/

The company has represented that its dividends and share repurchases
have come to a total of over $159 billion since 2000.

... snip ...

stock buyback posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#stock.buyback

Scott Lurndal wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 13:37:35 -0800 (PST), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 9:31:46 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> >"Reverse inversion".  What's "spurious" about it?  US corporate taxes
>>>>>> >were ludicrously high
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nonsense.   US Companies were rolling in dough before the
>>>>>> manifestly foolish tax plan was passed, which will never
>>>>>> be paid for in our children's lifetime.
>>>>>
>>>>>+1
>>>>
>>>>Spoken like true knee-jerk liberals.
>>>
>>> Wow, you can't support your statement so you devolve to namecalling.
>>
>>A lot of that money was just sitting overseas collecting dust and interest.
>>Now some companies are moving it back to the States using it for
>>infrastructure and distributions to employees (which is taxed as income--
>>so part of it is ending up in the Federal coffers).
>
> Cite?
>
> Many (Most?) CEO's have indicated they'll return the cash to shareholders
rather
> than invest in plant or people.   There obviously will be exceptions by
> either altrusistic CEOS (one in 10000) or those currying favor from the
> idiot-in-chief.

Apple.

/BAH

Scott Lurndal wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 13:37:35 -0800 (PST), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 9:31:46 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> >"Reverse inversion".  What's "spurious" about it?  US corporate taxes
>>>>>> >were ludicrously high
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nonsense.   US Companies were rolling in dough before the
>>>>>> manifestly foolish tax plan was passed, which will never
>>>>>> be paid for in our children's lifetime.
>>>>>
>>>>>+1
>>>>
>>>>Spoken like true knee-jerk liberals.
>>>
>>> Wow, you can't support your statement so you devolve to namecalling.
>>
>>A lot of that money was just sitting overseas collecting dust and interest.
>>Now some companies are moving it back to the States using it for
>>infrastructure and distributions to employees (which is taxed as income--
>>so part of it is ending up in the Federal coffers).
>
> Cite?
>
> Many (Most?) CEO's have indicated they'll return the cash to shareholders
rather
> than invest in plant or people.   There obviously will be exceptions by
> either altrusistic CEOS (one in 10000) or those currying favor from the
> idiot-in-chief.

Shareholders have been experiencing reductions in dividends since the
banking system imploded so they should get some.

I suspect a lot of CEO's are leery so are waiting to see if Congress takes
it all back which they can with one pen-stroke.

What I don't know is whether the cash brought in from overseas is subject
to an income tax; I think it is so Congress will be getting windfall
to waste.

/BAH

On 2/7/2018 9:07 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 13:37:35 -0800 (PST), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 9:31:46 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Reverse inversion".  What's "spurious" about it?  US corporate taxes
>>>>>>>> were ludicrously high
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nonsense.   US Companies were rolling in dough before the
>>>>>>> manifestly foolish tax plan was passed, which will never
>>>>>>> be paid for in our children's lifetime.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> Spoken like true knee-jerk liberals.
>>>>
>>>> Wow, you can't support your statement so you devolve to namecalling.
>>>
>>> A lot of that money was just sitting overseas collecting dust and interest.
>>> Now some companies are moving it back to the States using it for
>>> infrastructure and distributions to employees (which is taxed as income--
>>> so part of it is ending up in the Federal coffers).
>>
>> Cite?
>>
>> Many (Most?) CEO's have indicated they'll return the cash to shareholders
> rather
>> than invest in plant or people.   There obviously will be exceptions by
>> either altrusistic CEOS (one in 10000) or those currying favor from the
>> idiot-in-chief.
> 
> Shareholders have been experiencing reductions in dividends since the
> banking system imploded so they should get some.
> 
> I suspect a lot of CEO's are leery so are waiting to see if Congress takes
> it all back which they can with one pen-stroke.
> 
> What I don't know is whether the cash brought in from overseas is subject
> to an income tax; I think it is so Congress will be getting windfall
> to waste.

Yes, but this Congress is already using it to lower personal income 
taxes for the rich. Unfortunately, it's a one-time gob of money, and 
the next years they'll either have to raise taxes, or cut stuff like 
the military and Social Security (and it's not likely to be the military).

jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
> Shareholders have been experiencing reductions in dividends since the
> banking system imploded so they should get some.
>
> I suspect a lot of CEO's are leery so are waiting to see if Congress takes
> it all back which they can with one pen-stroke.
>
> What I don't know is whether the cash brought in from overseas is subject
> to an income tax; I think it is so Congress will be getting windfall
> to waste.

however there is enormous shift to returning value to shareholders with
stock buybacks which increases the value of stock held by shareholders
... however it shifts more to speculators that buy just before the
buybacks and unload after the buybacks ... must less focus on real
(long term) "investment".

Dave Garland wrote:
> On 2/7/2018 9:07 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 13:37:35 -0800 (PST), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 9:31:46 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Reverse inversion".  What's "spurious" about it?  US corporate
taxes
>>>>>>>>> were ludicrously high
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nonsense.   US Companies were rolling in dough before the
>>>>>>>> manifestly foolish tax plan was passed, which will never
>>>>>>>> be paid for in our children's lifetime.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Spoken like true knee-jerk liberals.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wow, you can't support your statement so you devolve to namecalling.
>>>>
>>>> A lot of that money was just sitting overseas collecting dust and
interest.
>>>> Now some companies are moving it back to the States using it for
>>>> infrastructure and distributions to employees (which is taxed as income--
>>>> so part of it is ending up in the Federal coffers).
>>>
>>> Cite?
>>>
>>> Many (Most?) CEO's have indicated they'll return the cash to shareholders
>> rather
>>> than invest in plant or people.   There obviously will be exceptions by
>>> either altrusistic CEOS (one in 10000) or those currying favor from the
>>> idiot-in-chief.
>>
>> Shareholders have been experiencing reductions in dividends since the
>> banking system imploded so they should get some.
>>
>> I suspect a lot of CEO's are leery so are waiting to see if Congress takes
>> it all back which they can with one pen-stroke.
>>
>> What I don't know is whether the cash brought in from overseas is subject
>> to an income tax; I think it is so Congress will be getting windfall
>> to waste.
>
> Yes, but this Congress is already using it to lower personal income
> taxes for the rich. Unfortunately, it's a one-time gob of money, and
> the next years they'll either have to raise taxes, or cut stuff like
> the military and Social Security (and it's not likely to be the military).

Why do you think that?  Power will eventually shift to the Democrats and
they will continue gutting the military like they were during the
Obama admin.  Soc. Sec. is already shifting from providing cash for
the recipients to withholding for Medicare.

/BAH

Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>> Shareholders have been experiencing reductions in dividends since the
>> banking system imploded so they should get some.
>>
>> I suspect a lot of CEO's are leery so are waiting to see if Congress takes
>> it all back which they can with one pen-stroke.
>>
>> What I don't know is whether the cash brought in from overseas is subject
>> to an income tax; I think it is so Congress will be getting windfall
>> to waste.
>
> however there is enormous shift to returning value to shareholders with
> stock buybacks which increases the value of stock held by shareholders
> ... however it shifts more to speculators that buy just before the
> buybacks and unload after the buybacks ... must less focus on real
> (long term) "investment".

I hadn't heard of buybacks.  Are Apple and Walmart doing that?

/BAH

jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>Dave Garland wrote:

>>
>> Yes, but this Congress is already using it to lower personal income
>> taxes for the rich. Unfortunately, it's a one-time gob of money, and
>> the next years they'll either have to raise taxes, or cut stuff like
>> the military and Social Security (and it's not likely to be the military).
>
>Why do you think that?  Power will eventually shift to the Democrats and
>they will continue gutting the military like they were during the
>Obama admin.

Military spending increased annually through the first half of the Obama
administration, and declined _very slightly_ over the
next four as the wars wound-down.   Hardly "gutting".  You really need
to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh (or his local radio proxies).

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_spending_analysis

jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>> Shareholders have been experiencing reductions in dividends since the
>>> banking system imploded so they should get some.
>>>
>>> I suspect a lot of CEO's are leery so are waiting to see if Congress takes
>>> it all back which they can with one pen-stroke.
>>>
>>> What I don't know is whether the cash brought in from overseas is subject
>>> to an income tax; I think it is so Congress will be getting windfall
>>> to waste.
>>
>> however there is enormous shift to returning value to shareholders with
>> stock buybacks which increases the value of stock held by shareholders
>> ... however it shifts more to speculators that buy just before the
>> buybacks and unload after the buybacks ... must less focus on real
>> (long term) "investment".
>
>I hadn't heard of buybacks.  Are Apple and Walmart doing that?

Everybody does that.  IBM has been buying back billions of dollars
worth of shares for the last decade - it's one of the biggest
props for their overpriced stock.

Yes Apple, too has spent billions buying back stock over the last
decade.

Apple is planning on buying back at least 120 Billion work of
stock with the offshore money.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/08/buy-apple-because-it-could-buy-back-more-than-120-billion-of-stock.html
http://appleinsider.com/articles/17/12/22/apple-expected-to-increase-stock-buyback-grow-dividend-payments-as-result-of-tax-reform

jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
> I hadn't heard of buybacks.  Are Apple and Walmart doing that?

past posts mentioning stock buybacks
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#stock.buyback

2015 rankings
http://fortune.com/2015/10/31/apple-ge-stock-buyback-chart/

apple, GE, walmart, home depot, qualcomm, glead sciences, united tech,
pepsico, amex, goldman

4 Companies That Have Repurchased the Most Stock Over the Past Decade
They've combined to buy back $563 billion worth of their stock in just
10 years.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/07/20/4-companies-that-have-repurchased-the-most-stock-o.aspx

apple, ibm, microsoft, exxonmobile

Apple, tech companies to bring back $400 billion in overseas cash to the
US: Estimate
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/05/apple-tech-companies-to-bring-back-400-billion.html

.....

note that is just relatively recent tax loopholes made legal by
congress.

spring 2009, IRS announced that it was going after $400B in taxes on
money illegally stashed overseas by 52,000 wealthy americans (over and
above tax loopholes that allowed trillions to be legally stashed
overseas) since the start of the century ... then little or nothing in
the news. spring 2011 the new speaker of the house has press conference
where he says he is cutting the budget for the IRS department
responsible for recovering the $400B. Since then there has been periodic
news about the banks and financial advisors have been fined a few
billion for their part in facilitating illegally stashing trillions
overseas (again, over and above the trillions that congressional tax
loopholes allowed to be stashed overseas "legally") ... but almost
nothing about recoverying the $400B in taxes owed on the money illegally
stashed overseas.

2002, congress lets the fiscal responsibility act lapse (spending can't
exceed tax revenue, totally different republican congress than the
republican congress that originally passed the act). 2010 CBO report
that 2003-2009, tax revenue cut by $6T (first time taxes cut to not pay
for two wars) and spending increased by $6T for $12T gap compared to
fiscal responsible budget. Since then taxes not restored and only modest
spending reductions so deficit continued to increase ... now over $20T
(and prediction that it increases another trillion over coming fiscal
year).

fiscal responsibility act posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#fiscal.responsibility.act
tax evasion, tax avoidance, tax haven pots
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#tax.evasion

CBO 2010 report also that of the big DOD spending increase 2003-2009,
they couldn't find anything to show for over trillion.

note for 20+yrs  all gov. agencies have been mandated to pass
financial audit ... DOD has yet to pass financial audit.

Exclusive: Massive Pentagon agency lost track of hundreds of millions of
dollars
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/05/pentagon-logistics-agency-review-funds-322860

however, above just mentions hundreds of millions ... not the trillions.

original justification for Iraq2 was they supported Al-Qaeda ... when
that was invalidated, they changed to WMDs and it would only cost $50B.
Two wars estimate is now over $5T, more than 100 times greater (when
long term veteran care & benefits are taken into account).

I Helped Sell the False Choice of War Once. It’s Happening Again.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/opinion/trump-iran-war.html

CIA director Colby refuses to approve "Team B" analysis claiming huge
Russian military capability, justifying huge US military spending
increase.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_B

White House Chief of Staff Rumsfeld replaces Colby with somebody (Bush1)
that will aggree with "Team B" analysis. Rumsfeld then resigns to become
SECDEF (and is replaced by his assistent Cheney).

In the 80s, Bush1 is VP and Rumsfeld is involved in supporting Iraq, US
support Iraq in the iran/iraq war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War
including supplying WMDs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war

In the early 90s, Bush1 is president and Cheney is SECDEF. Sat. photo
recon analyst told white house that saddam was marshaling forces to
invade Kuwait. White house said that saddam would do no such thing and
proceeded to discredit the analyst. Later the analyst informed the white
house that saddam was marshaling forces to invade Saudi Arabia, now the
white house has to choose between saddam and the Saudis.
http://www.amazon.com/Long-Strange-Journey-Intelligence-ebook/dp/B004NNV5H2/

This century, Bush2 is president, Cheney is VP, Rumsfeld is SECDEF and
one of the "Team B" members is deputy SECDEF (and major architect of
Iraq policy).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz
Iraq and weapons of mass destruction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

last decade, cousin of white house chief of staff Card ... was dealing
with the Iraqis at the UN and was given evidence that WMDs (tracing back
to US in the Iran/Iraq war) had been decommissioned. the cousin shared
it with Card, Powell and others ... then is locked up in military
hospital, book was published in 2010 (after being releaased and before
decommissioned WMDs were declassified)
http://www.amazon.com/EXTREME-PREJUDICE-Terrifying-Story-Patriot-ebook/dp/B004HYHBK2/

NY Times series from 2014, the decommission WMDs (tracing back to US
from Iran/Iraq war), had been found early in the invasion, but the
information was classified for a decade
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html
and military-industrial-complex wanted a war so badly that corporate
reps were telling former eastern block countries that if they voted for
IRAQ2 invasion in the UN, they would get membership in NATO and
(directed appropriation) USAID (can *ONLY* be used for purchase of
modern US arms). From the law of unintended consequences, the invaders
were told to bypass ammo dumps looking for WMDs, when they got aroundto
going back, over a million metric tons had evaporated.
http://www.amazon.com/Prophets-War-Lockheed-Military-Industrial-ebook/dp/B0047T86BA

Also back in the 80s, Former CIA director and then VP repeatedly claimed
that he knew nothing about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair
because he was fulltime administration point person deregulating
financial industry ... creating S&L crisis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis
along with other members of his family
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis#Silverado_Savings_and_Loan
and another
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE0D81E3BF937A25753C1A966958260

this decade, another family member presides over the economic mess 70
times larger than the S&L crises. S&L crisis had 30,000 criminal
referrals and 1000 criminal convictions with jailtime, proportionally
the economic mess should have 2.1M criminal referrals and 70,000
criminal convictions with jailtime.

note both 80s SECSTATE and SECDEF were Bechtel executives ... helping
their (former) employer do business in the middle east. "The Profiteers:
Bechtel and the Men Who Built the World" ... Bechtel is also part of the
massive uptic in gov. outsourcing last decade
https://www.amazon.com/Profiteers-Bechtel-Men-Built-World-ebook/dp/B010MHAHV2/

VP has become president and Iran/Contra prosecutors are working with
former SECDEF on evidence ... including against the sitting
president. The president then "pardons" the former SECDEF. loc2752-54:

Pollard had accidentally "busted the most secret White House operation
of modern times," as one account put it. "Neither Pollard nor the
government of Israel was aware that they had smashed George Bush's first
shipment of arms to Iran."

loc2764-65:

Despite his best efforts to silence Pollard, Weinberger would not escape
his own entanglement in the Iran-Contra conspiracy, for which he would
ultimately face criminal charges.

... snip ...

then a bunch of evidence is turned over (that the president had
"forgotten" about) showing he was heavily involved in Iran/Contra

Part of the enormous outsourcing last decade ... 70% of the intelligence
budget and over half the people ... including Snowden and others
http://www.investingdaily.com/17693/spies-like-us
accelerating the rapidly spreading "Success of Failure" culture
http://www.govexec.com/excellence/management-matters/2007/04/the-success-of-failure/24107/

The Profiteers, about hanford, loc4296-98:

In 2000 Bechtel received the $4.3 billion deal for the cleanup, which
the company estimated would cost $14 billion to complete. But eleven
years later, with the job still uncompleted, Bechtel predicted that the
final cost would be more than $120 billion.

... and about outsourcing of DOE labs (to Bechtel), loc4288-91:

A congressional commission, led by former undersecretary of the army
Norman Augustine and retired admiral Richard Mies, concluded in 2014
that the privatization of the nuclear weapons laboratories had resulted
in a "dysfunctional management and operations relationship," and "uneven
collaboration with customers"--the "customers" being the DOE.

... snip ...

Note only about 2/3rds of defense budget show up in DOD ... there is
about anther 1/3rd of defense budget that show up in places like DOE.

On 2/8/2018 8:40 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Dave Garland wrote:
>> On 2/7/2018 9:07 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 13:37:35 -0800 (PST), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 9:31:46 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Reverse inversion".  What's "spurious" about it?  US corporate
> taxes
>>>>>>>>>> were ludicrously high
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nonsense.   US Companies were rolling in dough before the
>>>>>>>>> manifestly foolish tax plan was passed, which will never
>>>>>>>>> be paid for in our children's lifetime.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Spoken like true knee-jerk liberals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wow, you can't support your statement so you devolve to namecalling.
>>>>>
>>>>> A lot of that money was just sitting overseas collecting dust and
> interest.
>>>>> Now some companies are moving it back to the States using it for
>>>>> infrastructure and distributions to employees (which is taxed as income--
>>>>> so part of it is ending up in the Federal coffers).
>>>>
>>>> Cite?
>>>>
>>>> Many (Most?) CEO's have indicated they'll return the cash to shareholders
>>> rather
>>>> than invest in plant or people.   There obviously will be exceptions by
>>>> either altrusistic CEOS (one in 10000) or those currying favor from the
>>>> idiot-in-chief.
>>>
>>> Shareholders have been experiencing reductions in dividends since the
>>> banking system imploded so they should get some.
>>>
>>> I suspect a lot of CEO's are leery so are waiting to see if Congress takes
>>> it all back which they can with one pen-stroke.
>>>
>>> What I don't know is whether the cash brought in from overseas is subject
>>> to an income tax; I think it is so Congress will be getting windfall
>>> to waste.
>>
>> Yes, but this Congress is already using it to lower personal income
>> taxes for the rich. Unfortunately, it's a one-time gob of money, and
>> the next years they'll either have to raise taxes, or cut stuff like
>> the military and Social Security (and it's not likely to be the military).
> 
> Why do you think that?  Power will eventually shift to the Democrats and
> they will continue gutting the military like they were during the
> Obama admin.  Soc. Sec. is already shifting from providing cash for
> the recipients to withholding for Medicare.

"Gutting"? Last time I checked, the US military budget was the biggest 
in the world, greater than the next 9 countries *combined*. Now, it's 
true that we've chosen to fight a 30 years war in Afghanistan, and 
more in Iraq and Syria. And Trump wants to have military parades that 
will outshine Moscow and Beijing..

SS only withholds for Medicare if you choose to get Part B 
(out-of-hospital coverage). That's not required (though I think it 
would be stupid not to).

On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 11:53:16 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> Military spending increased annually through the first half of the Obama
> administration, and declined _very slightly_ over the
> next four as the wars wound-down.   Hardly "gutting".  You really need
> to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh (or his local radio proxies).
> https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_spending_analysis

Thanks for posting that.

Over the last few days, Republicans in congress have been shedding
crocodile tears over the so-called 'destruction' of the U.S. military.
Sure seems to me, that with all their ships, planes, and rockets,
that we're in pretty good shape.

It's been often said that we have enough nuclear weapons to blow
the world up many times over.  So why do we need more of them, 
as proposed by the current administration?  Are we gonna 
detonate an H-bomb over ISIS?

Dave Garland <dave.g...@wizinfo.com> writes:
> "Gutting"? Last time I checked, the US military budget was the biggest
> in the world, greater than the next 9 countries *combined*. Now, it's
> true that we've chosen to fight a 30 years war in Afghanistan, and
> more in Iraq and Syria. And Trump wants to have military parades that
> will outshine Moscow and Beijing..

i know winslow ... but not a relative and since retired (this from last
administration, 2012)
https://breakingdefense.com/2012/03/the-military-imbalance-how-the-u-s-outspends-the-world/

The PPP comparison also reminds one of a bizarre analytical technique
the Cold War era intelligence community used when comparing US defense
spending to that of the Soviet Union. To size the overall Soviet defense
budget, an assumption was made, for example, to cost Soviet tanks, such
as the T-72, as the cost equivalent of American tanks, such as the M-1,
notwithstanding the fact that the American tank was far more complex and
therefore much more expensive than the T-72. Thus, with the Soviets
producing tanks in greater numbers than the US, the Soviet defense
budget was counted as far larger than it actually was. It was threat
inflation masked behind contrived budget analysis, and it was quite
notorious to all, except those who welcomed the budget/threat inflation
for bureaucratic or political reasons.

...

The last figure, “Planned Defence Expenditure by Country 2011,” shows
the proportion of US spending to all other regions and countries. The US
accounts for 45.7 percent of total spending by the world’s 171
governments and territories. While, again, there is no comparison of the
US and our allies vis-à-vis all of our “potential opponents,” the
comparison becomes so unbalanced as to be odious. With most of the top
ten on “our” side, the ratio of “us” to “them” is far more than five to
one and more like ten, or more, to one – even assuming many governments
are neutral.

... snip ...

DOD spending is only about 2/3rds of US, other third is DHS, DOE,
veterans, etc ... total over trillion/yr.

note: budget/thread inflation shows up in "Team B" ...  CIA director
Colby refuses to approve "Team B" analysis claiming huge Russian
military capability, justifying huge US military spending increase.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_B

White House Chief of Staff Rumsfeld replaces Colby with somebody (Bush1)
that will aggree with "Team B" analysis. Rumsfeld then resigns to become
SECDEF (and is replaced by his assistent Cheney).

In the 80s, Bush1 is VP and Rumsfeld is involved in supporting Iraq, US
support Iraq in the iran/iraq war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War
including supplying WMDs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war

In the early 90s, Bush1 is president and Cheney is SECDEF. Sat. photo
recon analyst told white house that saddam was marshaling forces to
invade Kuwait. White house said that saddam would do no such thing and
proceeded to discredit the analyst. Later the analyst informed the white
house that saddam was marshaling forces to invade Saudi Arabia, now the
white house has to choose between saddam and the Saudis.
http://www.amazon.com/Long-Strange-Journey-Intelligence-ebook/dp/B004NNV5H2/

This century, Bush2 is president, Cheney is VP, Rumsfeld is SECDEF and
one of the "Team B" members is deputy SECDEF (and major architect of
Iraq policy).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz
Iraq and weapons of mass destruction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

last decade, cousin of white house chief of staff Card ... was dealing
with the Iraqis at the UN and was given evidence that WMDs (tracing back
to US in the Iran/Iraq war) had been decommissioned. the cousin shared
it with Card, Powell and others ... then is locked up in military
hospital, book was published in 2010 (after being releaased and before
decommissioned WMDs were declassified)
http://www.amazon.com/EXTREME-PREJUDICE-Terrifying-Story-Patriot-ebook/dp/B004HYHBK2/

NY Times series from 2014, the decommission WMDs (tracing back to US
from Iran/Iraq war), had been found early in the invasion, but the
information was classified for a decade
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html
and military-industrial-complex wanted a war so badly that corporate
reps were telling former eastern block countries that if they voted for
IRAQ2 invasion in the UN, they would get membership in NATO and
(directed appropriation) USAID (can *ONLY* be used for purchase of
modern US arms). From the law of unintended consequences, the invaders
were told to bypass ammo dumps looking for WMDs, when they got around to
going back, over a million metric tons had evaporated.
http://www.amazon.com/Prophets-War-Lockheed-Military-Industrial-ebook/dp/B0047T86BA

perpetual war posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#perpetual.war
military-industrial(-congressional) complex posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#military.industrial.complex
team b posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#team.b
WMD posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#wmds

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:

> On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 11:53:16 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> Military spending increased annually through the first half of the Obama
>> administration, and declined _very slightly_ over the
>> next four as the wars wound-down.   Hardly "gutting".  You really need
>> to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh (or his local radio proxies).
>> https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_spending_analysis
>
> Thanks for posting that.
>
> Over the last few days, Republicans in congress have been shedding
> crocodile tears over the so-called 'destruction' of the U.S. military.
> Sure seems to me, that with all their ships, planes, and rockets,
> that we're in pretty good shape.
>
> It's been often said that we have enough nuclear weapons to blow
> the world up many times over.  So why do we need more of them, 
> as proposed by the current administration?  Are we gonna 
> detonate an H-bomb over ISIS?

Trump proposes new small tactical nukes.
What do you think?

-- 
Dan Espen

On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 7:52:41 PM UTC-5, Dan Espen wrote:

> Trump proposes new small tactical nukes.
> What do you think?

I thought they developed those 40 years ago.  Watson Jr, in his
memoir, mentions that in his post IBM service with the US Govt,
he saw nuclear weapons with "dial a yield".  He thought that
was creepy.

Anyway, given that today we have some pretty awesome delivery
missiles--"when we blow up the wall, which way do you want
it to fall?"--so maybe tactical nukes aren't necessary.

Nukes are nasty because they give off unseen deadly radiation and
contamination.  A conventional bomb blows up and it's done.  But
a nuke contaminates with nasty stuff.

I wonder how many baby boomers died from leukemia induced as a
result from nuke testing of the 1950s and 1960s.

Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>> I hadn't heard of buybacks.  Are Apple and Walmart doing that?
>
> past posts mentioning stock buybacks
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#stock.buyback
>
> 2015 rankings
> http://fortune.com/2015/10/31/apple-ge-stock-buyback-chart/
>
> apple, GE, walmart, home depot, qualcomm, glead sciences, united tech,
> pepsico, amex, goldman
>
> 4 Companies That Have Repurchased the Most Stock Over the Past Decade
> They've combined to buy back $563 billion worth of their stock in just
> 10 years.
> https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/07/20/4-companies-that-have-repurchased-
the-most-stock-o.aspx
>
> apple, ibm, microsoft, exxonmobile
>
> Apple, tech companies to bring back $400 billion in overseas cash to the
> US: Estimate
> https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/05/apple-tech-companies-to-bring-back-400-billi
on.html


I knew they were doing buybacks but I hadn't heard about using the
overseas money.

/BAH

>
> .....
>
> note that is just relatively recent tax loopholes made legal by
> congress.
>
> spring 2009, IRS announced that it was going after $400B in taxes on
> money illegally stashed overseas by 52,000 wealthy americans (over and
> above tax loopholes that allowed trillions to be legally stashed
> overseas) since the start of the century ... then little or nothing in
> the news. spring 2011 the new speaker of the house has press conference
> where he says he is cutting the budget for the IRS department
> responsible for recovering the $400B. Since then there has been periodic
> news about the banks and financial advisors have been fined a few
> billion for their part in facilitating illegally stashing trillions
> overseas (again, over and above the trillions that congressional tax
> loopholes allowed to be stashed overseas "legally") ... but almost
> nothing about recoverying the $400B in taxes owed on the money illegally
> stashed overseas.

Dave Garland wrote:
> On 2/8/2018 8:40 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Dave Garland wrote:
>>> On 2/7/2018 9:07 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>>>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 13:37:35 -0800 (PST), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 9:31:46 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Reverse inversion".  What's "spurious" about it?  US corporate
>> taxes
>>>>>>>>>>> were ludicrously high
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nonsense.   US Companies were rolling in dough before the
>>>>>>>>>> manifestly foolish tax plan was passed, which will never
>>>>>>>>>> be paid for in our children's lifetime.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Spoken like true knee-jerk liberals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wow, you can't support your statement so you devolve to namecalling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A lot of that money was just sitting overseas collecting dust and
>> interest.
>>>>>> Now some companies are moving it back to the States using it for
>>>>>> infrastructure and distributions to employees (which is taxed as
income--
>>>>>> so part of it is ending up in the Federal coffers).
>>>>>
>>>>> Cite?
>>>>>
>>>>> Many (Most?) CEO's have indicated they'll return the cash to
shareholders
>>>> rather
>>>>> than invest in plant or people.   There obviously will be exceptions by
>>>>> either altrusistic CEOS (one in 10000) or those currying favor from the
>>>>> idiot-in-chief.
>>>>
>>>> Shareholders have been experiencing reductions in dividends since the
>>>> banking system imploded so they should get some.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect a lot of CEO's are leery so are waiting to see if Congress
takes
>>>> it all back which they can with one pen-stroke.
>>>>
>>>> What I don't know is whether the cash brought in from overseas is subject
>>>> to an income tax; I think it is so Congress will be getting windfall
>>>> to waste.
>>>
>>> Yes, but this Congress is already using it to lower personal income
>>> taxes for the rich. Unfortunately, it's a one-time gob of money, and
>>> the next years they'll either have to raise taxes, or cut stuff like
>>> the military and Social Security (and it's not likely to be the military).
>>
>> Why do you think that?  Power will eventually shift to the Democrats and
>> they will continue gutting the military like they were during the
>> Obama admin.  Soc. Sec. is already shifting from providing cash for
>> the recipients to withholding for Medicare.
>
> "Gutting"? Last time I checked, the US military budget was the biggest
> in the world, greater than the next 9 countries *combined*. Now, it's
> true that we've chosen to fight a 30 years war in Afghanistan, and
> more in Iraq and Syria. And Trump wants to have military parades that
> will outshine Moscow and Beijing..
>
> SS only withholds for Medicare if you choose to get Part B
> (out-of-hospital coverage). That's not required (though I think it
> would be stupid not to).

It's not "required" but the SSec administration ensures that the
post card which gives you the choice to deny the insurance arrives
after the deadline date.

I have Part D without my permission.  It got added on sometime in
the past but it hasn't been listed on the 1099s nor the anuual
statements Soc. Sec. sent me.

/BAH

Scott Lurndal wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>>> Shareholders have been experiencing reductions in dividends since the
>>>> banking system imploded so they should get some.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect a lot of CEO's are leery so are waiting to see if Congress
takes
>>>> it all back which they can with one pen-stroke.
>>>>
>>>> What I don't know is whether the cash brought in from overseas is subject
>>>> to an income tax; I think it is so Congress will be getting windfall
>>>> to waste.
>>>
>>> however there is enormous shift to returning value to shareholders with
>>> stock buybacks which increases the value of stock held by shareholders
>>> ... however it shifts more to speculators that buy just before the
>>> buybacks and unload after the buybacks ... must less focus on real
>>> (long term) "investment".
>>
>>I hadn't heard of buybacks.  Are Apple and Walmart doing that?
>
> Everybody does that.  IBM has been buying back billions of dollars
> worth of shares for the last decade - it's one of the biggest
> props for their overpriced stock.
>
> Yes Apple, too has spent billions buying back stock over the last
> decade.
>
> Apple is planning on buying back at least 120 Billion work of
> stock with the offshore money.
>
> https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/08/buy-apple-because-it-could-buy-back-more-tha
n-120-billion-of-stock.html
> http://appleinsider.com/articles/17/12/22/apple-expected-to-increase-stock-b
uyback-grow-dividend-payments-as-result-of-tax-reform


OK.  I hadn't heard about that one.

/BAH

re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018.html#104 Tax Cut for Stock Buybacks
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018b.html#18 Important US technology companies sold to foreigners
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018b.html#21 Important US technology companies sold to foreigners
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018b.html#27 Important US technology companies sold to foreigners
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018b.html#63 Major firms learning to adapt in fight against start-ups: IBM

from today ....

"Day Of Reckoning" Nears As Goldman Projects A Record $650BN In Stock
Buybacks
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-25/day-reckoning-nears-goldman-projects-record-650bn-stock-buybacks

will be greatest in history, over half trillion.

posts mentioning stock buybacks
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#stock.buyback

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 11:29:00 -0800 (PST), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 8:41:46 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
>> > Then there's that whole "take IBM on head to head inthe computer market" which
>> > cost Xerox dearly in the 1970s.  No corporation can sustain the kind of loss
>> > which Xerox did and remain top dog in its core industry.
>> 
>> And now Oracle is doing the same thing, but against what's left of IBM.
>
>Is IBM in trouble today?
>
>Last I heard, it was buying back a lot of its stock.  That inflates
>the earnings per share since, since there are fewer shares, but it
>is a misleading indicator.  
>
>It seems (someone else could explain better) seems to evolved into
>a consulting company as opposed to a hardware company.  It still
>obviously makes the Z series, but it sold off so much of its
>hardware line.  Does it still have the economy of scale to support
>intensive research to keep knocking out improvements to hardware,
>as well as staff to maintain the complex operating systems?
>
>I think Unisys tried that route and while Unisys is still around,
>isn't it today a tiny fraction of what it once was (especially
>considering its parents)?
>
>Comments from anyone familiar with the current situation appreciated!

Cringely has written a lot about IBM in the past, although not so much in the
past year -- probably because of his recent ebook, "The Decline and Fall of
IBM."  Below are some recent columns.

Read with a grain of salt.  Skim through the comments with another grain.  He
seems to have overstated the situation somewhat, but my take is the gist is
correct, even if his timeline isn't.  Although IBM is becoming increasingly
irrelevant, it can take a long time for a big dinosaur to die.


https://www.cringely.com/2016/09/07/carrie-underwoods-american-idol-success-teaches-us-ibms-watson-failure/
https://www.cringely.com/2016/04/06/is-ibm-guilty-of-age-discrimination-part-2/
https://www.cringely.com/2016/03/28/is-ibm-guilty-of-age-discrimination-part-one/
https://www.cringely.com/2016/03/08/whats-happening-at-ibm/
https://www.cringely.com/2016/01/11/wheres-the-beef-ibm/
https://www.cringely.com/2015/07/21/ibm-is-so-screwed/
https://www.cringely.com/2015/03/30/the-indiana-pi-bill-ellen-pao-and-ibm/
https://www.cringely.com/2015/02/19/reporters-notebook-yahoo-ibm-ieee/
https://www.cringely.com/2015/01/26/ibm-right-gadfly/
https://www.cringely.com/2015/01/22/ibms-reorg-hell-launches-next-week/

Anne & Lynn Wheeler <ly...@garlic.com> writes:
> apple, GE, walmart, home depot, qualcomm, glead sciences, united tech,
> pepsico, amex, goldman

re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018b.html#21 Important US technology companies sold to foreigners

After its $10-Billion Loss in Q4, GE "Restates" Earnings for 2017 and
2016
https://wolfstreet.com/2018/02/26/after-its-10-billion-loss-in-q4-ge-restates-earnings-for-2017-and-2016/

But the restatements for 2016 and 2017 earnings are separate. They have
to do with how the company accounted for revenues from long-term
contracts. The SEC is already investigating GE's accounting of its
long-term service contracts. GE had previously disclosed this
investigation. The new way of accounting for those long-term contracts
"will simply more closely align revenue with cash," GE explained. And
this "we believe will be helpful to our investors."

No kidding. This could have been more helpful to investors years ago.

... snip ...

rhetoric on floor of congress was that Sarbanes-Oxley would prevent
future ENRONs and guarantee that executives and auditors did jail time,
however SOX required that SEC do something. Possibly because GAO didn't
believe SEC was doing anything, it started doing reports of public
company fraudulent financial filings, even show increase/uptic after SOX
goes into effect (and nobody doing jailtime).
https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-1053R

On July 24, 2006, we issued a report to Congress entitled, Financial
Restatements: Update of Public Company Trends, Market Impacts, and
Regulatory Enforcement Activities. That report included a listing of
1,390 financial restatement announcements that we identified as having
been made because of financial reporting fraud and/or accounting errors
between July 1, 2002, and September 30, 2005. As part of that work,
Congress asked that we provide a limited update of that database for the
period October 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006.

... snip ...

web search gao.gov for financial restatement only turns up this in 2007,
nothing since
https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06678.pdf

Enron posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#enron
Sarbanes-Oxley posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#sarbanes.oxley
Financial reporting fraud posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#financial.reporting.fraud

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

Anne & Lynn Wheeler <ly...@garlic.com> writes:
> from today ....
>
> "Day Of Reckoning" Nears As Goldman Projects A Record $650BN In Stock
> Buybacks
> https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-25/day-reckoning-nears-goldman-projects-record-650bn-stock-buybacks
>
> will be greatest in history, over half trillion.

re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018b.html#67 Important US technology companies sold to foreigners

and even more from today:

Trump's Tax Cuts in Hand, Companies Spend More on Themselves
Than on Wages
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/26/business/tax-cuts-share-buybacks-corporate.html

upthread, Home Debot said bonus would be "up to $1000" for associates
... if it was $1000 for everybody that would be 3% of what they would
spend on buybacks .... however, "up to $1000" could imply that avg would
be much less than $1000 .... possibly more like 1% (or less) of what
they would spend on buybacks.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018b.html#18 Important US technology companies sold to foreigners

buyback posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#stock.buyback

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018b.html#21 Important US technology companies sold to foreigners
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018b.html#27 Important US technology companies sold to foreigners
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018b.html#67 Important US technology companies sold to foreigners
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018b.html#y1 Important US technology companies sold to foreigners

more from today .... home depot's "up to $1000"

Workers Are Getting Basically Nothing From The Corporate Tax Windfall
https://www.fastcompany.com/40537732/workers-are-getting-basically-nothing-from-the-corporate-tax-windfall

Home Depot is one company that's promised bonuses but which is
actually giving most of its savings to shareholders. The retailer
announced in January that it was awarding bonuses on a sliding scale
based on its associates' length of service. Those with less than
two years will get $200. Those with 15 to 19 years service will get
$750.

.... snip ....

Stock Buybacks Hurt Workers and the Economy. We Should Ban Them.
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2018/03/stock-buybacks-hurt-workers-economy-ban.html

The deceptively named Tax Cut and Jobs Act slashes the corporate tax
rate from 35 percent to 21 percent on the theory that companies will use
the extra after-tax profits to make productive investments that will
create jobs for Americans. Yet it is clear that instead of helping to
rebuild the vanishing middle class, corporate executives will funnel the
tax savings to already-rich shareholders through stock buybacks and cash
dividends, increasing their take from the stock market. As a result, the
nation's rampantly unequal income distribution will only become worse.

..

Repurchases done on the open market, which constitute the vast majority
of all buybacks, are nothing but manipulation of the stock market. So
why are companies allowed to do them? Because of the 1980 election of
Ronald Reagan as president on a platform of market deregulation. In
November 1982, after Reagan had appointed Wall Street banker John Shad
as chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the agency
adopted Rule 10b-18, which permits a company to do buybacks that can
amount to hundreds of millions of dollars per day, trading day after
trading day, without fear of being charged with stock-price
manipulation. Rule 10b-18, which remains in force 35 years later, is a
license to loot the U.S. business corporation.

... snip ...

prior to rule "10b-18", such buybacks were illegal manipulation.

The Ugly Truth Behind Stock Buybacks
https://www.forbes.com/sites/aalsin/2017/02/28/shareholders-should-be-required-to-vote-on-stock-buybacks/#5036902c6b1e

For most of the 20th century, stock buybacks were deemed illegal because
they were thought to be a form of stock market manipulation. But since
1982, when they were essentially legalized by the SEC, buybacks have
become perhaps the most popular financial engineering tool in the
C-Suite tool shed.

... snip ...

stock buyback posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#stock.buyback
inequality posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#inequality


-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970