Author Topic: Trump’s Economy (merged)  (Read 19648 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Trump’s Economy (merged)
« Reply #330 on: August 19, 2018, 11:02:09 AM »

Offline Cman

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12661
  • Tommy Points: 88
This seems like a solid idea:

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-considering-change-way-america-114645326.html

Um, no, it really isn’t.  Less transparency is bad for investors, who will require a greater premium due to enhanced risk from less information.  This in turn will deflate stock prices.

If we want to incentivize companies to invest in more innovative products and services, ie be more long term oriented, there are simpler ways to do this. Like with a R&D tax credit.

If this is going to hurt investors, why was the idea proposed by Warren Buffett and JD Morgan?  Last I checked, neither was in the business of losing money for their investors.

Not having to answer to projections every three months seems like common sense in terms of allowing companies to implement long term strategies that may take a bit to get going.

I don't know what the effect will be on investors. That's harder to parse out.

I just don't get the problem we are trying to solve. Once I can understand that, then I can assess whether semi-annual reporting is better than quarterly.

From what I've seen in the news and twitter, etc, it seems like the concern is that firms are not investing for the long term. If that's the issue, then what is the evidence of this, other than griping by executives? I don't see investors complaining about this. I don't see a drop in corporate spending on R&D. In short, I see no evidence of a "short termism" problem.

Even if there is evidence that we have a "short termism problem" and companies are not investing for the long term, then we need a discussion about what tools are the best way to address it. Sure, changing reporting requirements seems like one such tool. But it seems like a really indirect tool.

Why not R&D tax credits? Seems very direct.

Why not mandating that executives have pay that is tied to long term performance? Seems more direct.

All that said, I applaud the idea of a study, as the president has asked. I want policy-making to be evidence based, not gut based.
Celtics fan for life.

Re: Trump’s Economy (merged)
« Reply #331 on: August 19, 2018, 02:40:56 PM »

Offline More Banners

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3770
  • Tommy Points: 250
This seems like a solid idea:

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-considering-change-way-america-114645326.html

Um, no, it really isn’t.  Less transparency is bad for investors, who will require a greater premium due to enhanced risk from less information.  This in turn will deflate stock prices.

If we want to incentivize companies to invest in more innovative products and services, ie be more long term oriented, there are simpler ways to do this. Like with a R&D tax credit.

If this is going to hurt investors, why was the idea proposed by Warren Buffett and JD Morgan?  Last I checked, neither was in the business of losing money for their investors.

Not having to answer to projections every three months seems like common sense in terms of allowing companies to implement long term strategies that may take a bit to get going.

I don't know what the effect will be on investors. That's harder to parse out.

I just don't get the problem we are trying to solve. Once I can understand that, then I can assess whether semi-annual reporting is better than quarterly.

From what I've seen in the news and twitter, etc, it seems like the concern is that firms are not investing for the long term. If that's the issue, then what is the evidence of this, other than griping by executives? I don't see investors complaining about this. I don't see a drop in corporate spending on R&D. In short, I see no evidence of a "short termism" problem.

Even if there is evidence that we have a "short termism problem" and companies are not investing for the long term, then we need a discussion about what tools are the best way to address it. Sure, changing reporting requirements seems like one such tool. But it seems like a really indirect tool.

Why not R&D tax credits? Seems very direct.

Why not mandating that executives have pay that is tied to long term performance? Seems more direct.

All that said, I applaud the idea of a study, as the president has asked. I want policy-making to be evidence based, not gut based.

Yeah I don't really see any major advantage to switching, other than keeping retail investors a bit more in the dark, and a bit less frequent paperwork (but perhaps more cumbersome when it comes around).  it seems plausible that, when info is already at a premium, this would just make it easier for industry insiders to profit on the possible increases in volatility (or, how would wider swings in price be moderated when big news becomes more rare/scarce?).

But kudos for asking what problem, exactly, is supposed to be solved here. I would like everyone who tried to make the case that companies could act more long-term if they think another 3 months qualifies as anything long term. I mean, if we could hear ourselves saying this stuff out loud...  3 or 6 month reporting is irrelevant to long term corporate planning and strategy. Long term stuff takes years to show returns, having to show returns every 6 mos instead of 3 makes no practical difference.

Re: Trump’s Economy (merged)
« Reply #332 on: August 19, 2018, 05:55:58 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35971
  • Tommy Points: -27665
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
This seems like a solid idea:

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-considering-change-way-america-114645326.html

Um, no, it really isn’t.  Less transparency is bad for investors, who will require a greater premium due to enhanced risk from less information.  This in turn will deflate stock prices.

If we want to incentivize companies to invest in more innovative products and services, ie be more long term oriented, there are simpler ways to do this. Like with a R&D tax credit.

If this is going to hurt investors, why was the idea proposed by Warren Buffett and JD Morgan?  Last I checked, neither was in the business of losing money for their investors.

Not having to answer to projections every three months seems like common sense in terms of allowing companies to implement long term strategies that may take a bit to get going.

I don't know what the effect will be on investors. That's harder to parse out.

I just don't get the problem we are trying to solve. Once I can understand that, then I can assess whether semi-annual reporting is better than quarterly.

From what I've seen in the news and twitter, etc, it seems like the concern is that firms are not investing for the long term. If that's the issue, then what is the evidence of this, other than griping by executives? I don't see investors complaining about this. I don't see a drop in corporate spending on R&D. In short, I see no evidence of a "short termism" problem.

Even if there is evidence that we have a "short termism problem" and companies are not investing for the long term, then we need a discussion about what tools are the best way to address it. Sure, changing reporting requirements seems like one such tool. But it seems like a really indirect tool.

Why not R&D tax credits? Seems very direct.

Why not mandating that executives have pay that is tied to long term performance? Seems more direct.

All that said, I applaud the idea of a study, as the president has asked. I want policy-making to be evidence based, not gut based.

I read an article recently on Forbes.com that linked wage stagnation with corporations being almost hyper-focused on shareholder returns. The author argued that prior to the 80s, there wasn’t the same “shareholders, and only the shareholders” concern. If the focus was less on hitting quarterly targets, perhaps corporations wouldn’t be as scared of the “short-termism” of increased wages.

I don’t know the answer, although I tend to trust Buffett, and think that if Trump is listening to him in this area, it’s probably a good thing.  I might feel differently if I handled my own investing, but that’s what brokers are for, and many of the best brokers are on board with this.  They obviously think they’ll make money for their clients.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Trump’s Economy (merged)
« Reply #333 on: August 19, 2018, 06:47:31 PM »

Online nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33487
  • Tommy Points: 5524
This seems like a solid idea:

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-considering-change-way-america-114645326.html

Um, no, it really isn’t.  Less transparency is bad for investors, who will require a greater premium due to enhanced risk from less information.  This in turn will deflate stock prices.

If we want to incentivize companies to invest in more innovative products and services, ie be more long term oriented, there are simpler ways to do this. Like with a R&D tax credit.

If this is going to hurt investors, why was the idea proposed by Warren Buffett and JD Morgan?  Last I checked, neither was in the business of losing money for their investors.

Not having to answer to projections every three months seems like common sense in terms of allowing companies to implement long term strategies that may take a bit to get going.

I don't know what the effect will be on investors. That's harder to parse out.

I just don't get the problem we are trying to solve. Once I can understand that, then I can assess whether semi-annual reporting is better than quarterly.

From what I've seen in the news and twitter, etc, it seems like the concern is that firms are not investing for the long term. If that's the issue, then what is the evidence of this, other than griping by executives? I don't see investors complaining about this. I don't see a drop in corporate spending on R&D. In short, I see no evidence of a "short termism" problem.

Even if there is evidence that we have a "short termism problem" and companies are not investing for the long term, then we need a discussion about what tools are the best way to address it. Sure, changing reporting requirements seems like one such tool. But it seems like a really indirect tool.

Why not R&D tax credits? Seems very direct.

Why not mandating that executives have pay that is tied to long term performance? Seems more direct.

All that said, I applaud the idea of a study, as the president has asked. I want policy-making to be evidence based, not gut based.

I read an article recently on Forbes.com that linked wage stagnation with corporations being almost hyper-focused on shareholder returns. The author argued that prior to the 80s, there wasn’t the same “shareholders, and only the shareholders” concern. If the focus was less on hitting quarterly targets, perhaps corporations wouldn’t be as scared of the “short-termism” of increased wages.

I don’t know the answer, although I tend to trust Buffett, and think that if Trump is listening to him in this area, it’s probably a good thing.  I might feel differently if I handled my own investing, but that’s what brokers are for, and many of the best brokers are on board with this.  They obviously think they’ll make money for their clients.
I really doubt the call for the "shareholders only" attitude is going to change and that reporting every 6 months is going to effect changes to wages for those who aren't in the top 15-20% of wage earners. But I would love to see a nonpartisan study done on the subject and see what the recommendations would be. I mean, a bunch of the rest of the world do their corporate reporting in 6 month intervals and it doesn't seem to make much of a difference to their shareholders.

Re: Trump’s Economy (merged)
« Reply #334 on: August 19, 2018, 08:31:51 PM »

Offline Cman

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12661
  • Tommy Points: 88
This seems like a solid idea:

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-considering-change-way-america-114645326.html

Um, no, it really isn’t.  Less transparency is bad for investors, who will require a greater premium due to enhanced risk from less information.  This in turn will deflate stock prices.

If we want to incentivize companies to invest in more innovative products and services, ie be more long term oriented, there are simpler ways to do this. Like with a R&D tax credit.

If this is going to hurt investors, why was the idea proposed by Warren Buffett and JD Morgan?  Last I checked, neither was in the business of losing money for their investors.

Not having to answer to projections every three months seems like common sense in terms of allowing companies to implement long term strategies that may take a bit to get going.

I don't know what the effect will be on investors. That's harder to parse out.

I just don't get the problem we are trying to solve. Once I can understand that, then I can assess whether semi-annual reporting is better than quarterly.

From what I've seen in the news and twitter, etc, it seems like the concern is that firms are not investing for the long term. If that's the issue, then what is the evidence of this, other than griping by executives? I don't see investors complaining about this. I don't see a drop in corporate spending on R&D. In short, I see no evidence of a "short termism" problem.

Even if there is evidence that we have a "short termism problem" and companies are not investing for the long term, then we need a discussion about what tools are the best way to address it. Sure, changing reporting requirements seems like one such tool. But it seems like a really indirect tool.

Why not R&D tax credits? Seems very direct.

Why not mandating that executives have pay that is tied to long term performance? Seems more direct.

All that said, I applaud the idea of a study, as the president has asked. I want policy-making to be evidence based, not gut based.

I read an article recently on Forbes.com that linked wage stagnation with corporations being almost hyper-focused on shareholder returns. The author argued that prior to the 80s, there wasn’t the same “shareholders, and only the shareholders” concern. If the focus was less on hitting quarterly targets, perhaps corporations wouldn’t be as scared of the “short-termism” of increased wages.

I don’t know the answer, although I tend to trust Buffett, and think that if Trump is listening to him in this area, it’s probably a good thing.  I might feel differently if I handled my own investing, but that’s what brokers are for, and many of the best brokers are on board with this.  They obviously think they’ll make money for their clients.
I really doubt the call for the "shareholders only" attitude is going to change and that reporting every 6 months is going to effect changes to wages for those who aren't in the top 15-20% of wage earners. But I would love to see a nonpartisan study done on the subject and see what the recommendations would be. I mean, a bunch of the rest of the world do their corporate reporting in 6 month intervals and it doesn't seem to make much of a difference to their shareholders.

The only direct study that I know of is a paper from 2017 by three professors from MIT, Duke and Columbia. They study when the UK switched from quarterly to semi-annual. They find no evidence that the change had any effect on corporate investment decisions.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2817120

Interesting to note that the SEC has considered these changes before; it is not something new.
Celtics fan for life.

Re: Trump’s Economy (merged)
« Reply #335 on: August 19, 2018, 08:40:01 PM »

Offline hpantazo

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17751
  • Tommy Points: 527
This seems like a solid idea:

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-considering-change-way-america-114645326.html

Um, no, it really isn’t.  Less transparency is bad for investors, who will require a greater premium due to enhanced risk from less information.  This in turn will deflate stock prices.

If we want to incentivize companies to invest in more innovative products and services, ie be more long term oriented, there are simpler ways to do this. Like with a R&D tax credit.

If this is going to hurt investors, why was the idea proposed by Warren Buffett and JD Morgan?  Last I checked, neither was in the business of losing money for their investors.

Not having to answer to projections every three months seems like common sense in terms of allowing companies to implement long term strategies that may take a bit to get going.

I don't know what the effect will be on investors. That's harder to parse out.

I just don't get the problem we are trying to solve. Once I can understand that, then I can assess whether semi-annual reporting is better than quarterly.

From what I've seen in the news and twitter, etc, it seems like the concern is that firms are not investing for the long term. If that's the issue, then what is the evidence of this, other than griping by executives? I don't see investors complaining about this. I don't see a drop in corporate spending on R&D. In short, I see no evidence of a "short termism" problem.

Even if there is evidence that we have a "short termism problem" and companies are not investing for the long term, then we need a discussion about what tools are the best way to address it. Sure, changing reporting requirements seems like one such tool. But it seems like a really indirect tool.

Why not R&D tax credits? Seems very direct.

Why not mandating that executives have pay that is tied to long term performance? Seems more direct.

All that said, I applaud the idea of a study, as the president has asked. I want policy-making to be evidence based, not gut based.

R&D tax credits is not a bad idea, but my concern with that is, you are taking money out of the government budget then in some way, something things would have to be cut, and then you would need to spend money to oversee this and verify that the claims for R&D tax credits are legit. How do you verify that consistently? In some cases, it may be easy for corporations to claim the tax credit but not invest as much in R&D as they claim. It could be as simple as stating that a high level administrator is paid X amount extra to oversee increased R&D activity, when in fact its just another way to reword a bonus for him/her.

Re: Trump’s Economy (merged)
« Reply #336 on: August 19, 2018, 09:07:47 PM »

Offline Greenback

  • NCE
  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 695
  • Tommy Points: 57
  • Take away love and the earth is a tomb. ~ Browning
Buffet's thinking is consistent with W. Edwards Deming's thinking.  Deming proved it works by helping transform Japan's economy into a post-war economic miracle. 

Deming's first point: 1 "Create constancy of purpose towards improvement". Replace short-term reaction with long-term planning.

Give Trump credit, he is bringing in ideas from proven, unquestionable thought leaders that get results. 

Time to get a clue folks.
Everyone wants truth on his side, not everyone wants to be on the side of truth.

Re: Trump’s Economy (merged)
« Reply #337 on: August 19, 2018, 09:45:58 PM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4132
  • Tommy Points: 341
There are plenty of things to criticize Trump for.  No need to criticize him for this.  He hasn't even lied about it yet.

I don't know if quarterly or semi-annually is better.  I honestly don't think that companies are suddenly going to start paying their employees more and I also don't think this will become a transparency issues but I have never been an officer in a publicly traded company.

Companies look at P&L every month.  I know this for a fact.  How often they issue public statements has nothing to do with this.

Oh, and the R&D tax credit is a manufactured loop hole that is an income stream for tax consultants.  I can't go into great detail as I have been criticized in the past when I referenced my experience relative to business ownership but maybe some will believe me when I say that this is a scam that allows companies to avoid paying taxes.

Trump was supposed to reduce the corporate rate but also close loop holes.  He did reduce the rate but did not close any loopholes (in fact created more by expanding pass through tax breaks).

Re: Trump’s Economy (merged)
« Reply #338 on: August 20, 2018, 08:34:09 PM »

Offline Greenback

  • NCE
  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 695
  • Tommy Points: 57
  • Take away love and the earth is a tomb. ~ Browning
Everyone wants truth on his side, not everyone wants to be on the side of truth.

Re: Trump’s Economy (merged)
« Reply #339 on: August 20, 2018, 08:36:53 PM »

Offline Greenback

  • NCE
  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 695
  • Tommy Points: 57
  • Take away love and the earth is a tomb. ~ Browning
Everyone wants truth on his side, not everyone wants to be on the side of truth.

Re: Trump’s Economy (merged)
« Reply #340 on: August 20, 2018, 08:59:09 PM »

Online nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33487
  • Tommy Points: 5524
More winning.  Good news.  All aboard the Trump train.

https://steadfastandloyal.com/news-for-you/winning-black-owned-businesses-increase-by-over-400-in-just-one-year-of-trump/
A recent Census study found black owned businesses at around 100,000 nationwide. That was a couple years ago. I didn't see any numbers in your link but find it hard to believe 400,000 black businesses started up in one year.

https://www.inc.com/helena-ball/new-entrepreneurship-us-census-survey-black-owned-businesses-increased-lag-remains.html

If you want to provide a link to actual numbers of confirmed businesses being opened up, I would love to see it.

Re: Trump’s Economy (merged)
« Reply #341 on: August 20, 2018, 11:59:51 PM »

Offline liam

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11295
  • Tommy Points: 795

Re: Trump’s Economy (merged)
« Reply #342 on: August 21, 2018, 02:00:04 AM »

Offline byennie

  • Webmaster
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2105
  • Tommy Points: 2916
More winning.  Good news.  All aboard the Trump train.

https://steadfastandloyal.com/news-for-you/winning-black-owned-businesses-increase-by-over-400-in-just-one-year-of-trump/
A recent Census study found black owned businesses at around 100,000 nationwide. That was a couple years ago. I didn't see any numbers in your link but find it hard to believe 400,000 black businesses started up in one year.

https://www.inc.com/helena-ball/new-entrepreneurship-us-census-survey-black-owned-businesses-increased-lag-remains.html

If you want to provide a link to actual numbers of confirmed businesses being opened up, I would love to see it.

The article is taking a small survey painfully out of context, since obviously the 400% number is completely insane. I mean really, African-American business owners QUINTUPLED in one year across America? 'Cause Trump? That defies the slightest bit of common sense.

Here's the source:
https://www.guidantfinancial.com/learning-center/infographics/2018-african-american-business-owners/
---
Lucky17 Yahoo! Points League: Jackalopes
Offseason Tracker

Re: Trump’s Economy (merged)
« Reply #343 on: August 27, 2018, 11:58:04 AM »

Offline Pucaccia

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 526
  • Tommy Points: 58
The United States and Mexico have reached a new Trade Agreement which basically overturned the destructive NAFTA and make trading with Mexico more fair for the USA. (Winning!)

1. Trump said he would renegotiate NAFTA to be more fair for USA.  Now Canada will be next.
2. While others got all freaked out with Tariffs or the threat of Tariffs, Trump is using it as a negotiation tactic and it is working.

3. While the swamp and Democrats are having a witch hunt, Trump is making the USA stronger.

I will be interested to see how the haters will turn this successful agreement with Mexico into a negative.

Re: Trump’s Economy (merged)
« Reply #344 on: August 27, 2018, 12:15:28 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35971
  • Tommy Points: -27665
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
The United States and Mexico have reached a new Trade Agreement which basically overturned the destructive NAFTA and make trading with Mexico more fair for the USA. (Winning!)

1. Trump said he would renegotiate NAFTA to be more fair for USA.  Now Canada will be next.
2. While others got all freaked out with Tariffs or the threat of Tariffs, Trump is using it as a negotiation tactic and it is working.

3. While the swamp and Democrats are having a witch hunt, Trump is making the USA stronger.

I will be interested to see how the haters will turn this successful agreement with Mexico into a negative.

Have any details been released regarding what the changes are?


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...