The short term vs. long term argument, coupled with the proliferation of company/competitor intelligence nearly makes it inevitable, however. Easy example: 1 billion rev company making 100 million of earnings. Companies in the industry trade at 10x earnings. Let's say the company is relatively generous with employees and is somewhat paternalistic. Its costs run 3% more (as a % of rev), so earnings could be $130 million if they got greedy. If you controlled the business, it's worth $1.3 billion, because you can affect those changes. Since the company is okay with maintaining its course per the board/CEO, and shareholders aren't forcing changes, the public value remains supressed at $1 billion. Along comes a strategic buyer who will make those changes and then some (another $30 million of synergies). They're pretty damn confident they'll get at least $140 milion of earnings out of the business and as much as $170 million. They're going to offer $1.3 billion to $1.5 billion for the business. Shareholders aren't going to turn down $28/share when the shares currently sit at $20. The line that, "If we don't maximize value, someone else will do it for us." does hold true, more or less. There is a glut of info from equity analysts, market intelligence, demographic research etc and it stifles innovation and the long view in certain companies. US companies are covered so much more than their peers in other countries. Well covered companies get defensive and short sighted. https://qz.com/126200/innovations-patents-financial-analysts/ Re: too much information. In the US, you can find out that are 460 petroleum/refinery system pump operators+gaugers in the Toledo metro area in roughly 30 seconds via the BLS and key demographics of any neighborhood in the country. You can get 20 current equity analyst reports on 10bn US companies, all sorts of SEC docs, market data from shelf movement, major contracts awarded, segmented product market share, etc. Some of that is open to the public, some of it is known by 100s of people studying a particular industry in the investment comunity + competitors. Counter example: Kesko in Finland. It's a big grocery store chain. 2/3 the size of Whole Foods. About the same size as Trader Joe's and the Gap. Very thin coverage. The have ADRs on NASDAQ but no extensive filings. An annual report that says not much. The one thing I remember about them from when I was helping someone with grocery store targets about 15 years ago is that their supermarkets were branded KKK. It's the same size as Giant Eagle, which is private, and we could dig up better info on Giant Eagle. Acquirors get a bit antsy. They don't get the informationn they need to make an assessment before they approach the target, so there's a bit more tolerance for a plan that may not optimize shareholder value in the short term (or even at all). The US (and to a lesser extent, the UK) are at the front end of this information saturation, which leads to some low hanging acquisition fruit/targeting. The ubiquity of English certainly helps. It will be interesting to see if this continues to expand into other markets. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see a way to fix it if I'm not.
Somewhat related, and connected to nice's comment about the 1950s corporations not being public, I recently came across a story about how research says that a tested reason why the socialist model of support works in Scandinavia is due to the largely White population demographics. Even if all is a good and healthy economy, as the society gets more racially heterogeneous, the desire to keep the same level of social services by White people is lessened. That idea kinda mixes with the devaluation of the unions in the US. In the 1950s, unions - and equivalent jobs - were largely White. But as more POC became involved, the value of the overall worker became less. That is not very clean, but it seems to match, and is another indication of the unrecognized unequalness that Whites see in POC.
Argentina's union membership as a percentage of the workforce is at approximately 40 percent, and of course there's universal health care for everybody. And more good news for the leftist agenda. Roughly 29 percent of employment is provided by the public sector. Truly a worker's paradise.
That's why I'm not comparing us to Argentina. There are other, much more causal, relationships at work in Peronistan.
I'm Ok with this if it is pennies per share. The rates Sanders was proposing (don't remember the exact amount) were really punitive. Not all people who own stocks are the 1% who "deserve" to have their money confiscated.
Don't quote me on this, but I think the norm is under 1%. Maybe even under .5%. The idea is to tax out of existence trades that are made to take advantage of tiny, ultimately meaningless arbitrages, the kinds of things that has drawn top computing talent to Wall Street in order to write programs to take advantage of those things.
My point exactly. Tax at 5 cents per share and it no longer makes sense to buy and sell thousands of shares to take advantage of a10 cent spread, and it doesn't kill the little guy who is buying or selling a couple hundred shares. Taking a straight percentage, even something that sounds low like 0.5%, would really eat into the returns that everyone makes. See the countless articles in personal finance magazines talking about keeping fees low...
Unions. I'm mixed. I grew up in Detroit, my parents also dealt with them, and my family held the first coal miner meetings at their restaurant many many years ago. I recognize that the whole not getting screwed over thing is great. However, from what my parents told me, she also encountered a lot of obstacles in getting things done when it came to unions. And in my experience, the people I worked with that wanted a union were usually the laziest workers. That said, I'm lucky. My current role isn't union but I have awesome benefits and a decent amount of time off. Just wish I had more to do but it's been a slow period.
I'm a "horses for courses" guy. When I see people advocate primarying Joe Manchin, I think they're idiots. Dianne Feinstein is different. She's a moderate conservative in a very liberal state. She's 84, so, let's be real here, there's a pretty good chance she won't be able to finish the term anyway, leaving it to the governor to appoint someone till the next election. I think she should be primaried.
Sure great totally on board with you no problems with what you said whatsoever... Which bills or laws did she pass that you dislike? Which bills or laws did she block that you liked?
This is true. https://www.cbpp.org/research/socia...ayroll-taxes-would-strengthen-social-security But I would argue we need to raise the retirement age for many workers and industries because the physical labor involved isn't arduous, meaning we can be productive longer. My profession requires very little physical labor. I shouldn't be allowed to start collecting at 62, or even 65.
There are already penalties for retiring that early but I don't believe we are right in telling someone who has worked a job that had them on their feet all of their life that they couldn't retire at 62.
Now that is an interesting idea. Letting health experts dictate the age at which an individual should, on average, be worn out due to their job.
I could get a doctors note to collect disability or something like that, but it doesn't pay too well. EDIT: On second thought, neither does my current career. What if I have had multiple jobs/careers over my lifetime? Sorry. Just wanted to point out that the gov't is just gonna have to pick a number. It's too convoluted to try and be "fair."
On the flip side, a whole lot of people are unemployable by the age of 65, having health issues that affect their ability to work, or being in jobs that are simply too strenuous for (many, not everybody, there are always happy exceptions) people of that age. How do we work this? Rolling eligibility of Social Security depending on occupation?
I don't dislike Feinstein, but if she wins she will be in office until she is 91. That is just too old. Dems need to get somebody younger in power. Not just her - Biden, Sanders, Warren, Pelosi - too many old farts. Even if you like their positions on the issues they should not be leading the party. (Hell, Sanders isn't even in the party, that's another good reason for him.)