Home | About | Donate

To Curb Corporate Abuse of Stock Buyback 'Bamboozle,' Baldwin Bill Would Bolster Worker Power


#1

To Curb Corporate Abuse of Stock Buyback 'Bamboozle,' Baldwin Bill Would Bolster Worker Power

Jon Queally, staff writer

While specifically citing the estimated quarter-trillion dollars in stock buybacks that have already occurred since passage of the Republican Party's "tax scam" reform in December, Sen Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) on Thursday introduced a new bill designed to rein in the corporate practice that enriches wealthy executives and stockholders at the expense of workers and their families.


#2

Make illegal practices that benefit the few, illegal.

What a common sense concept.


#3

While it is difficult to not purchase goods made by corporations, the surest way to end their corruption is to not invest in them. Do not own stock of any sort and do not keep your money in any of the big banks. As long as you invest in corporations and banks you are perpetuating and contributing to their malfeasance. For a paltry 0.25% interest you are going to let a bank have your money to use as they see fit? Keep your money in a coffee can or under the mattress where you know the banks can’t steal it.


#4

That is very TRUE, however, being AWARE of which corporations are screwing us, we can cut back on their bottom line. Me? I NEVER go into a big box store unless I absolutely have to. We have a store locally that is owned by employees that stock a lot of things I don’t have to get from the GREED CAPITALISTS!

“Keep your money in a coffee can or under the mattress where you know the banks can’t steal it.”

Better yet: BUY GOLD AND SILVER!!! NOT paper, but the real items that you can hold!!!


#5

Stock buybacks are purely voluntary. If a shareholder wants to tender their shares, they can. If the company doesn’t have a better use for the money why not buy back shares? If the company can make more money by reinvesting than by repurchasing shares they will. If they can’t make back the cost of capital, it is better for all parties that the money be distributed to the shareholders so it can either be spent, or reinvested elsewhere.

Alternatively, equalize the tax and accounting rules between dividends and stock repurchases.


#6

This is what neo-liberal economic polices do. They increase corporate wealth while screwing Americans. If giving $trillons in tax scams isn’t enough they sit around eating lobster and drink fine champagne and find ways to “cut costs”. It’s(the collapse) coming to an end, soon I believe, it’s only a matter of when. We really need some firm New Deal type politicians to save average middle class and poverty wage working Americans.


#7

While I keep my money in a Credit Union mainly, and I agree with the point of avoiding the really big banks for several reasons; however, I disagree with never owning stock. You dont have to give all your money to some broker or put it oil companies (hell no), but invest smartly after doing your research and its an easy way to grow your wealth. You can even target potential industries that you may morally support such as companies that develop green technology. That is something Im thinking about doing and selling off some of the stocks that are in companies that hurtl environment or health of society in general (haven’t yet because that one is quite down partially because of corrupt business practices that I didn’t know about when I bought it). What I’m saying is that smart focused investing is a safe and morally smart thing for most common people to do even if they are not buying a lot. Better to support and be supported by companies that are environmentally conscious and support their workers than loose out on a growing economy.


#8

Couldn’t agree more.


#9

I don’t personally like the business model of public investor owned companies. I think that most investors are too removed from the business end of the equation and are only interested in profit. The first duty is to maximizing profit to the stockholders and I don’t think that is a healthy way to run any business. Certainly you have to make a profit to stay in business but you don’t have to maximize your profit at the expense of all else. I’m happy to lose out on a growing economy as the growth needs to stop anyway. You can’t have continuing growth in a finite system and that is the fundamental flaw of the capitalistic system.


#10

I agree, we need to change how the economy works and while I fully admit to participating in this economy (I might as well, it pays better (partially in dividends) than the dividend the bank gives me) I do think that the way to go for the future is more worker owned business and more community banks (or postal banks I genuinely love that idea) among other changes to the structure of our broken bubble based economic system. Growth will continue to occur with innovations, public infrastructure investment, and increased living expectations but we need to ween our selves off it as we move to the environment and worker friendly loop systems of the future.


#11

I agree with pretty much everything except for the continuance of growth. The population needs to shrink and with it the economy needs to move to a sustainable level or lower to make up for the systems we have already overshot. We need to get nitrogen back into the atmosphere and carbon out.


#12

Overtime with increased education and access to reproductive services around the world population will eventually start to shrink. It probably won’t happen until long after I’m dead though.


#13

Oh I think the social chaos of global warming will begin to reduce the population long before that.


#14

It used to be illegal and was considered stock price manipulation, which is exactly what it is. That law or regulation was eliminated by Clinton among other things to avoid impeachment. Its Orwellian title was the Financial Modernization Act.


#15

Thanks for the explanation, Antisandman.


#16

Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the reasons why stock-buy-backs have been illegal up until 1982. I’m sure you’d then have an answer to your question- rather than just ruminating on your assumptions as you are currently doing. Things like that weren’t illegal without a good reason. Something happened that history will tell. Are you sure you want to open the door to repeating history without know what that was?


#17

They were illegal in a different regulatory environment when companies did not have the same disclosure rules that are in place today. There’s a significant difference between the world of “pump and dump” and “ABC corp announced today that they are buying back up to $1.0B of shares”.


#18

If Tammy really cared about curbing corporate abuse, she’d not have voted in support of the war profiteers’ massively-bloated “defense” budget, nor would she have played chief cheerleader in bringing its dangerous boondoggle F-35 war plane to train over people’s homes in the skies of Central Wisconsin. The GMA and our “intelligence” infrastructure has her in their pockets as well. Its all in her voting record.
Like all good corporate Democrats, Tammy knows where her meal ticket comes from; instead of stock buybacks, she’d rather have corporations invest that tax break windfall in their futures by throwing some more her way.


#19

So, you think you know something about the subject.
Read Antisandman’s post above- it indicates what stock-buy-backs are really about.
You are either refusing to admit to it or you don’t know. Like I said, perhaps you should better acquaint yourself with history before ruminating on your assumption.


#20

Somehow, I don’t think a one-line post calling it stock price manipulation is indicative.

If the buyback is announced, which is required under current law, it simply represents an efficient use of capital.

If the company’s stock price is better served by reducing outstanding capital, rather than being spent on the business, the shareholders (both those who choose to tender and those who choose to retain their shares) are better served.

Investors know the company is buying back stock, and can choose to tender their shares or not. Voluntary on the part of all parties.