or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Apple lobbies for offshore tax holiday to bring cash to US
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple lobbies for offshore tax holiday to bring cash to US - Page 3

post #81 of 190
Hmm, so ignorance is bliss? You favor corporations over individuals?


Quote:
Originally Posted by boeyc15 View Post

oh brother....
post #82 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo View Post

at least Apple's not sending all the money to tax haven... like Google.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...1043146825.htm

5% is still way more than 2.4% Google's paying.

two wrongs dont make a right, nor do they make add up to make a left.
post #83 of 190
What a joke. Apple exports every job it can overseas at at time when real unemployment in this country, especially among young adults, is running around 20%. And yet they promise that, just this once, they'll spend some of their overseas billions back home, that is, if only Congress will cut their tax rates by a tiny little 600%.

You'd think some of the wealthiest people in the world would care enough about their home country to bring the money in anyway, and that they'd gladly pay the taxes to help with this year's 1.5 trillion dollar deficit. But no, it appears that's too much to ask from them. Give them billions in tax breaks and they just might add a few hundred people to their US payrolls. Maybe.

Karl Marx was wrong about capitalism in general. There are a lot of good, honest, generous business people out there. I know some of them. But he was quite right about the perversion of capitalism that's practiced in the Silicon Valley. There we have billionaire executives whose great wealth is built on people working for pennies in Asian sweatshops.

Obama would give them this tax break in a flash. They voted for him and it's just the sort of Chicago crony politics he's practiced for his entire political life. We can only hope that all those new Republicans we elected last fall show a bit more gumption.
post #84 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post

Because those profits were realized overseas and and taxed at local jurisdiction's rates already. To bring them in, they have to pay additional taxes on top of what they already paid to local jurisdictions. If they don't bring them in, they dont have to pay (which is what they are doing now).

Also, I pay well over 40% of my income to taxes, is it fair that I pay 45% while you pay 26%?

No, it's isn't fair. Everybody (including corporations) should pay the same flat tax. And yes, these corps should pay the same amount when they bring the money back to the States even if they paid local taxes elsewhere. I wish I was saddled with 1/2 to 2/3 of 60 billion dollars. Greedy pricks won't bring the money back to the U.S. out of greed and nothing more.
post #85 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinemagic View Post

Sure, why not let Apple and others bring in a trillion dollars tax free. Obama's raising my taxes and local, state and federal agencies are raising fees I pay on everything. We the people can easily afford to pay our own taxes and fees plus Apple's. Let the rich corporations have a holiday. I'll just get a third job so that Steve Jobs can rebuild his Palo Alto home in true style.

I know it feels good to say that 'corporations' should pay their fair share and all that.

Guess who pays all the taxes, directly or indirectly, at the end of the day.
post #86 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

What has the U.S. ever done for Apple?

Hmm, provided a stable market place for it to sell its products, provide an adequate legal structure and rule of law and allowed it to enforce its contracts, provide a favorable marketplace for it to raise capital and enable it to make the investments that it has made, protect its technological innovations domestically and abroad and provide it with an intelligent workforce. The list goes on and on.

Do you think Apple Inc. can survive in a lawless governmentless place such as Somalia?

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply
post #87 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling View Post

Obama would give them this tax break in a flash. They voted for him and it's just the sort of Chicago crony politics he's practiced for his entire political life. We can only hope that all those new Republicans we elected last fall show a bit more gumption.

Don't try to hold your breath until Republicans lead the charge to raise corporate taxes.
post #88 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

No, it's isn't fair. Everybody (including corporations) should pay the same flat tax. And yes, these corps should pay the same amount when they bring the money back to the States even if they paid local taxes elsewhere. I wish I was saddled with 1/2 to 2/3 of 60 billion dollars. Greedy pricks won't bring the money back to the U.S. out of greed and nothing more.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. There are plenty of huge organizations that are LLCs or LPs (such as the company that I work for) that make billions of dollars in income that pay no taxes.

Before you get all in a tizzy over this, the owners report the income and pay the taxes as if they made the money themselves (this is called pass-through taxation).

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply
post #89 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post

Hmm, so ignorance is bliss? You favor corporations over individuals?

Corporations 'over' individuals? What nonsense.

Where do you think most taxpaying individuals work? Who do you think manufactures your food, clothes, shelter, transportation, computers, entertainment, .......?
post #90 of 190
This whole issue has less to do with the level of tax rates in the US than it does with the weird system of taxation that the US subscribes to compared to the of the rest of the world: the 'worldwide,' as opposed to the 'territorial' system of taxation.

In the worldwide system, income is taxed in the home country rate regardless of where it is earned if income abroad is taxed at a lower rate than in the home country. In the territorial system (e.g., the one many European companies subscribe to) you are presumed to have taken care of your tax obligations if you have paid your taxes abroad as required by the place where you do business, regardless of what the rate is.

Guess which system encourages all types of tax-related transfer pricing shenanigans, parking cash abroad, and incorporating in places like Bermuda and the Marshall Islands?

The US seriously needs to consider fundamentally overhauling its tax system -- especially, corporate tax system -- and not just its corporate tax rate, if it has any hope of dealing with its deficits.
post #91 of 190
Most companies with sound tax pros pay o ly the amt. If the government caves on a tax holiday it may as well just institute a 5% corp rate. If companies want acess to an educated and productive workforce, affluent customers and a fair legal system they have to pay, just like everyone else. Tax system insentivises behavior to build fair business practices and encourage investment in the future, hence the charity, Ada environmental credits. It shouldn't encourage parking cash outside the country and waiting for a tax holiday. That is counter productive.
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #92 of 190
Anyone here ever been to business school ?

The purpose of management is to exploit each employee to the greatest potential and earn a profit for the corporation.

The CFO has the obligation of finding any and every way to avoid paying anyone anything they don't have to.

From hourly wages, to benefits and corporate taxes, it's all the same. Pay as little as the law allows.

When you want to capitalize here and your capital is elsewhere you ask for exceptions to the tax laws.

It's been going on for decades. Apple is one of the many, many corporations to do this.

Their current success makes using their name in the headline good news, hence profit for those that sell news.

It also provides hits for this site and allows greater sales of advertising on the site.

It's the current state of capitalism in this country. No real news here at all.
post #93 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by AIaddict View Post

Pretty much only the US tries to double tax like that and hence only US companies need to engage in such strategies to reduce their taxes to internationally competitive levels..

No they aren't, take a look at the goings on of a lot of the EU based pharmaceutical giants, they're the one's who pretty much invented these schemes.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #94 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by K.C. View Post

Anyone here ever been to business school ?

Have you? When? Where?
post #95 of 190
The presumption for corporate taxes is that corporations really don't pay taxes, individuals do -- because any taxes are passed onto employees with lower wages, or to consumers with higher prices.

I think Apple should look at the FairTax (fairtax.org). It replaces our current tax system with a consumption tax (in a progressive way -- it's a tiny bit more complicated than a straight national retail sales tax. It would replace corporate taxes, social security taxes, and income taxes with a simple retail tax -- and it was designed to generate the same amount of revenue for the government. The end result is that you keep all of your paycheck, the IRS goes away, and you pay taxes when you buy retail. It's not a VAT, in that it just charges the final product - so business-to-business transactions are left untaxed.

FairTax did a study on the effect of this, and it would bring a lot of that overseas profit back onshore, which as it's redistributed and spent, would be taxed. It would also tax foreign products at the same rate as domestically produced products, which is not what happens today, so it would level the playing field and help reduce the trade deficit.

It is definitely not something Washington would push on it's own, but with enough word of mouth - we could make this a reality.
post #96 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

No they aren't, take a look at the goings on of a lot of the EU based pharmaceutical giants, they're the one's who pretty much invented these schemes.

The US (along with Japan) is among the very few major economies that has the worldwide, as opposed to the territorial, system of taxation. So, the previous poster is (sort of) right, and getting at something quite important.
post #97 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post

Because those profits were realized overseas and and taxed at local jurisdiction's rates already. To bring them in, they have to pay additional taxes on top of what they already paid to local jurisdictions. If they don't bring them in, they dont have to pay (which is what they are doing now).

Also, I pay well over 40% of my income to taxes, is it fair that I pay 45% while you pay 26%?

It's far from fair. He should pay zero and you should pay 99% if he was honest in his expressions.

Seriously, corporations don't pay that tax until after they collect the from the consumer. It's just one more way that real taxes an individual pays is masked by layers of regulation and enforced by classism. Regulations are the way big Corp keeps little Corp from rising. Government partnering with business is just one recipe for screw the govererned.
post #98 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

However, even though the Treasury Department attempted to write rules at the time to ensure the money would be invested locally, most of the cash (60 to 92 percent, according to one study cited in the report) was simply returned to shareholders in the form of stock buybacks and dividends.

Golly, how unfair! Did the study happen to research what those consumers did with their money? Surely they didn't burn it, right?
post #99 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by dobber View Post

The presumption for corporate taxes is that corporations really don't pay taxes, individuals do -- because any taxes are passed onto employees with lower wages, or to consumers with higher prices.

It is definitely not something Washington would push on it's own, but with enough word of mouth - we could make this a reality.

Epic first post.
post #100 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post

This is why I like Obama's idea of getting rid of all of the corporate tax loopholes and lowering the corporate tax rate.

And I'm a pretty hardcore conservative (fiscally, on social matters, I'm in the I don't give a crap camp).

Ok so about two things
On #1 i'll believe it when I see it, until then it's propoganda
On #2, this makes complete sense that the U.S. economy would benefeit. The tax was probably originally to protect american industry from outside competition (which it doesn't need, doesn't work, and we yell at other countries for doing) or as a 'hidden' export tax, as in we can't tax our exports or our goods will be less wanted, but if we tax the cost to make them, then it won't seem like, "the U.S. is screwing us over" from international consumers.
No trees were harmed by sending this message, though a large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
Reply
No trees were harmed by sending this message, though a large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
Reply
post #101 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

Greedy pricks won't bring the money back to the U.S. out of greed and nothing more.

Greedy pricks insist on taxing overseas profits based on greed and nothing more. Even worse, the selfish bastards dont care if it drives jobs overseas, as long as their job is secure.
post #102 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

Typical Corporate Greed.. Corporations feel the deserve special treatment. My wife and I pay about 26% of our income to taxes. How is it that these corporations feel they deserve to avoid paying the same in taxes?

The money was earned in a foreign country, and taxes were paid on it. What they are trying to avoid is paying taxes twice. Thrice, actually, since once they return it to consumers, another tax is paid.

By the way corporations are not, and cannot be greedy. They do not have emotions. People are greedy. You thinking Apple should give the money that has been rightfully earned for its shareholders to you (that is what your government is, you know) instead of keeping it for itself and its owners, is very greedy on your part. How do you have more right to the Apple shareholders' money than they have to it? Seems they earned it by providing the capital, they should get to keep it, not you.
post #103 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by W1ll1am View Post

So Apple needs a 30% cut app developers hard work, but wants to only pay 5% tax for a whole year? I would bet anything that these corporations once again get their way, and that this gets extended for more than a year. I would also like a "Tax Holiday" for next year, and I promise to buy Apple products with the extra cash in my pocket. No seriously I Promise.

It must be bliss.
post #104 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by AIaddict View Post

Greedy pricks insist on taxing overseas profits based on greed and nothing more. Even worse, the selfish bastards dont care if it drives jobs overseas, as long as their job is secure.

Stop it with the judgements. I know its a forum, but those comments do nothing to add to the intellectual conversation.
No trees were harmed by sending this message, though a large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
Reply
No trees were harmed by sending this message, though a large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
Reply
post #105 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magic_Al View Post

The government could use the money to improve public education and scholarship opportunities so Apple has a better domestic talent pool to hire from.

Yes, if the government would ONLY spend some more money on public schools! That way our poor, underfunded children (who only get more money per pupil than anyone, for TERRIBLE (and worsening) performance) can finally get a break.

Seriously, do you just read the politicians' speeches and assume that everything they say is true? Sheesh.
post #106 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by dobber View Post

The presumption for corporate taxes is that corporations really don't pay taxes, individuals do -- because any taxes are passed onto employees with lower wages, or to consumers with higher prices.

I think Apple should look at the FairTax (fairtax.org). It replaces our current tax system with a consumption tax (in a progressive way -- it's a tiny bit more complicated than a straight national retail sales tax. It would replace corporate taxes, social security taxes, and income taxes with a simple retail tax -- and it was designed to generate the same amount of revenue for the government. The end result is that you keep all of your paycheck, the IRS goes away, and you pay taxes when you buy retail. It's not a VAT, in that it just charges the final product - so business-to-business transactions are left untaxed.

FairTax did a study on the effect of this, and it would bring a lot of that overseas profit back onshore, which as it's redistributed and spent, would be taxed. It would also tax foreign products at the same rate as domestically produced products, which is not what happens today, so it would level the playing field and help reduce the trade deficit.

It is definitely not something Washington would push on it's own, but with enough word of mouth - we could make this a reality.

I agree! However, i dont think this will happen. There are thousands of people employed by the IRS and thousands of accountants who make their living through tax loopholes. There would be a revolt (metaphorically) and possibly a strike of IRS workers. Millions of unprocessed checks and an unfunded government are not a good thing.
No trees were harmed by sending this message, though a large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
Reply
No trees were harmed by sending this message, though a large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
Reply
post #107 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

Try being less of a poor hobo?
I mean, everyone else, Steve Ballmer, for example, pay WAY less than 25% of their revenue in tax.... only poor people do such ridiculous things.
And it answers your question: corporations ' money is very rich people's money, not "some unknown and faceless entity"'s money. Those people pay very low tax on their income, why should corporations which pay them dividends pay huge taxes, which means less dividends?

Wow, so I guess I'm a very rich person. And so are most people here! Amazing!

It must be nice to have no clue about the world. The people who own public corporations are EVERYONE, just about.
post #108 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

Yes, if the government would ONLY spend some more money on public schools! That way our poor, underfunded children (who only get more money per pupil than anyone, for TERRIBLE (and worsening) performance) can finally get a break.

Seriously, do you just read the politicians' speeches and assume that everything they say is true? Sheesh.

Good sentiment. There is a big issue with the theory that throwing money at a problem will make it go away. However, just because that is his belief (erroneous or not) doesn't make him unintelligent.
No trees were harmed by sending this message, though a large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
Reply
No trees were harmed by sending this message, though a large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
Reply
post #109 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

Wow, so I guess I'm a very rich person. And so are most people here! Amazing!

It must be nice to have no clue about the world. The people who own public corporations are EVERYONE, just about.

The interesting thing about everyone owning corporations is that, in some cases, the board can actually be overruled by the stockholders. However, since it is unlikely that 40+% of stockholders would actually give a concise and unilateral opinion, the company is left with artificial control.
No trees were harmed by sending this message, though a large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
Reply
No trees were harmed by sending this message, though a large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
Reply
post #110 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by K.C. View Post

Anyone here ever been to business school ?

The purpose of management is to exploit each employee to the greatest potential and earn a profit for the corporation.

The CFO has the obligation of finding any and every way to avoid paying anyone anything they don't have to.

From hourly wages, to benefits and corporate taxes, it's all the same. Pay as little as the law allows.

When you want to capitalize here and your capital is elsewhere you ask for exceptions to the tax laws.

It's been going on for decades. Apple is one of the many, many corporations to do this.

Their current success makes using their name in the headline good news, hence profit for those that sell news.

It also provides hits for this site and allows greater sales of advertising on the site.

It's the current state of capitalism in this country. No real news here at all.

The purpose of management is to maximze shareholder value. Value is not exclusively defined as profit, hence many companies are involved in charitable activities because the owners find that valuable, as just one example. Second, many successfull managers believe trying to wring every drop out of the employees and such backfires and that a happy healthy workforce and a possitive relationship with government entities, communities etc. leads to higher long term earnings and therefore better maximizes shareholder value.

And yes I did go to business school.
post #111 of 190
"Solipsism: In philosophy, a view that maintains that the self is the only thing that can be known to exist. It is an extreme form of skepticism. The solipsist sees himself or herself as the only individual in existence...."

Epic. It's like the matrix. I know I exist, but is that person real or a program?
No trees were harmed by sending this message, though a large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
Reply
No trees were harmed by sending this message, though a large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
Reply
post #112 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by AIaddict View Post

The purpose of management is to maximze shareholder value. Value is not exclusively defined as profit, hence many companies are involved in charitable activities because the owners find that valuable, as just one example. Second, many successfull managers believe trying to wring every drop out of the employees and such backfires and that a happy healthy workforce and a possitive relationship with government entities, communities etc. leads to higher long term earnings and therefore better maximizes shareholder value.

And yes I did go to business school.

While that is the technical purpose, how would you comment on how the effects outside (i.e. personal ambition, government, etc) of the business market affect those decisions?

Just interested.

( by the way, i love how every conversation not related to android turns into a philosophical or societal discussion) (the android ones turn into slap fights)
No trees were harmed by sending this message, though a large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
Reply
No trees were harmed by sending this message, though a large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
Reply
post #113 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by aquajets1 View Post

Good sentiment. There is a big issue with the theory that throwing money at a problem will make it go away. However, just because that is his belief (erroneous or not) doesn't make him unintelligent.

If you think simply throwing money at a complex problem will make it go away, and that there are no costs in trying to do so, yes it makes you unintelligent.
post #114 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by AIaddict View Post

If you think simply throwing money at a complex problem will make it go away, and that there are no costs in trying to do so, yes it makes you unintelligent.

except that wasn't the comment you responded to. He stated the funding for the issues (importation of cash) and it was merely made as a side comment. Though I believe the companies would choose not to bring in the money otherwise, the comment itself was not meant to be a logical argument necessarily, just an idea.
No trees were harmed by sending this message, though a large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
Reply
No trees were harmed by sending this message, though a large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
Reply
post #115 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

The trickle down theory doesn't work. Why because nobody forces the rich to share the wealth. If a tax holiday is given, there will be guarantee that stockholders will get a dividend. Apple isn't going to give one.

If only there was more force in this world. You'd better hope nobody ever decides you've got more money than you need, my friend.
post #116 of 190
Originally Posted by TBell
The trickle down theory doesn't work. Why because nobody forces the rich to share the wealth. If a tax holiday is given, there will be guarantee that stockholders will get a dividend. Apple isn't going to give one.

You make it sound like the rich (and I hate that word because it is so vague) should be punnished for making money. If so, what incentive would there be to work hard and advance society?
No trees were harmed by sending this message, though a large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
Reply
No trees were harmed by sending this message, though a large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
Reply
post #117 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by sciwiz View Post

Oh the irony....Apple (and others) not wanting to pay 30%.

It's not ironic. NOBODY wants to pay more money than absolutely necessary for anything. That's the amazing thing that makes capitalism works. Whining crybabies want there to be laws that protect them from their employers who, in their minds, are trying to pay too little for their services. Companies on the other hand want protection from having to pay their workers more than they are worth. The tug of war between the two sides ensures that all workers are paid fairly, relative to their peers. A worker with skills more valuable to society as a whole is paid more than one with less valuable skills. That is, until the government steps in.

When that happens, someone with less marketable skills gets paid more than they should, and someone with more marketable skills gets paid less than they should. Because unskilled dummies are a larger part of the workforce (and voting world) than highly skilled ones, societies that lose their will to compete tend to trend towards what the USA and France are today - socialism. In socialism, the more poorly skilled do better than they would have otherwise. The most highly skilled do far, far worse. The net result is that society is worse off, because 100s of thousands of people spend their whole lives merely moving the shells around from person A to person B, instead of doing something to advance society.

It's quite sad, really, and especially when you can watch it happening in slow motion.
post #118 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by aquajets1 View Post

While that is the technical purpose, how would you comment on how the effects outside (i.e. personal ambition, government, etc) of the business market affect those decisions?

Just interested.

( by the way, i love how every conversation not related to android turns into a philosophical or societal discussion) (the android ones turn into slap fights)

One of the biggest issues in corporate governance is how to allign Management's interests with the shareholders' interest. There is no simple answer. Lets assume a simplest of scenarios where owners only care about money and nothing else....

You can pay an anual bonus based on accounting metrics like profits. The problem is this can encourage a manager close to retirement to shoot for short term profits over long term profits. No investment in R&D, that costs money now, and the profits wont hit for years! It also creates a reward for cooking the books. And so on....

A much better solution is to give the managers stock options, or so we thought for a while. If the shareholders stock price goes up, so does the value of managements options. Wallstreet takes a longer term view and will (often) frown upon management teams that sacrifice long term profits for short term gains, and also the option terms are typically 5 or 10 years so management has to have a longer time horizon to cash in. On the downside, they still find ways to game the system, like backdating their options or managing wall street perceptions, sometimes illegally. There is also the issue that an option does not have the same risks as a share of stock, just the same reward. Management with options will have an incentive to take bigger risks than the shareholders would, knowing that they make a ton if they hit a home run and lose nothing if they strike out. This, along with a bonus structure that rewarded risk played a huge role in the Enron failure. The fraud that made the press was simply an attempt to cover up what had already gone sour from a poor reward scheme. Same issue for the investment banks.

So now what? Boards need to be vigilant and shareholders need to hold boards accountable. As I said even with a simple goal like make money, there is no simple way to keep managers perfectly aligned with shareholder interests. Reward sytems for management need to provide incentives for good behavior and disincentives for bad behavior, but there has to be oversight to make sure the system is not gamed, and action is taken if it is. The companies that do this well have a big long term competitive advantage. Many professional investors (including Buffet) put a big emphasis on corporate governance, more so than historical financial results.
post #119 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

It's not ironic. NOBODY wants to pay more money than absolutely necessary for anything. That's the amazing thing that makes capitalism works. Whining crybabies want there to be laws that protect them from their employers who, in their minds, are trying to pay too little for their services. Companies on the other hand want protection from having to pay their workers more than they are worth. The tug of war between the two sides ensures that all workers are paid fairly, relative to their peers. A worker with skills more valuable to society as a whole is paid more than one with less valuable skills. That is, until the government steps in.

When that happens, someone with less marketable skills gets paid more than they should, and someone with more marketable skills gets paid less than they should. Because unskilled dummies are a larger part of the workforce (and voting world) than highly skilled ones, societies that lose their will to compete tend to trend towards what the USA and France are today - socialism. In socialism, the more poorly skilled do better than they would have otherwise. The most highly skilled do far, far worse. The net result is that society is worse off, because 100s of thousands of people spend their whole lives merely moving the shells around from person A to person B, instead of doing something to advance society.

It's quite sad, really, and especially when you can watch it happening in slow motion.

Exactly! it's the very thing that causes its own issues in society. People see they can work hard and get paid money, or not work hard and... still get paid about the same amount. Its why socialist and comunist systems (not that we are anywhere near that yet) don't work, because they undervalue any desire to advance as a society, by overvaluing mediocrity.
No trees were harmed by sending this message, though a large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
Reply
No trees were harmed by sending this message, though a large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
Reply
post #120 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by AIaddict View Post

One of the biggest issues in corporate governance is how to allign Management's interests with the shareholders' interest. There is no simple answer. Lets assume a simplest of scenarios where owners only care about money and nothing else....

You can pay an anual bonus based on accounting metrics like profits. The problem is this can encourage a manager close to retirement to shoot for short term profits over long term profits. No investment in R&D, that costs money now, and the profits wont hit for years! It also creates a reward for cooking the books. And so on....

A much better solution is to give the managers stock options, or so we thought for a while. If the shareholders stock price goes up, so does the value of managements options. Wallstreet takes a longer term view and will (often) frown upon management teams that sacrifice long term profits for short term gains, and also the option terms are typically 5 or 10 years so management has to have a longer time horizon to cash in. On the downside, they still find ways to game the system, like backdating their options or managing wall street perceptions, sometimes illegally. There is also the issue that an option does not have the same risks as a share of stock, just the same reward. Management with options will have an incentive to take bigger risks than the shareholders would, knowing that they make a ton if they hit a home run and lose nothing if they strike out. This, along with a bonus structure that rewarded risk played a huge role in the Enron failure. The fraud that made the press was simply an attempt to cover up what had already gone sour from a poor reward scheme. Same issue for the investment banks.

So now what? Boards need to be vigilant and shareholders need to hold boards accountable. As I said even with a simple goal like make money, there is no simple way to keep managers perfectly aligned with shareholder interests. Reward sytems for management need to provide incentives for good behavior and disincentives for bad behavior, but there has to be oversight to make sure the system is not gamed, and action is taken if it is. The companies that do this well have a big long term competitive advantage. Many professional investors (including Buffet) put a big emphasis on corporate governance, more so than historical financial results.

So in other words, people need to give a c***, otherwise they are just screwing themselves over. But not just one person, everyone collectively.

On a completely unrelated note to this forum, gold, commodity or speculation now that 70% of gold mined is sold to investors?
No trees were harmed by sending this message, though a large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
Reply
No trees were harmed by sending this message, though a large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AAPL Investors
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Apple lobbies for offshore tax holiday to bring cash to US