Some share buybacks programs are hurting investors & workers

Image result for share buyback

Between 2008 and 2017, 466 of the S&P 500 companies spent around $4 trillion on stock buybacks, equal to 53 percent of profits. The Trump tax cut of 2018, helped corporations to repurchased more than $1 trillion of their own stock, a staggering figure and the highest amount ever authorized in a single year.

Under a share buyback program, a company purchases a certain number of its own shares on the open market. Reducing the number of outstanding shares making the remaining shares worth more. One of the most obvious reasons for the growth of such programs is to help offset the effects of generous stock compensation packages for executives, including stock options and stock contributions to employees’ 401(k) programs.

In theory, management only repurchases stock if it expects to enhance shareholder value more that way than by using the cash for capital spending, acquisitions, product development or dividend distributions. In reality, it has helped poor management use financial engineering to artificially increase earnings and hopefully keep share prices from falling in value.

A very simple example below shows how financial engineering works. A corporation buybacks 50,000,000 shares at $20.00 each which increases earnings by $0.25 and reduces the price earnings ratio from 20 to 16 making the company more attractive to investors.

buyback

General Electric is a perfect example of corporate mismanagement. From 2015 to 2017, they repurchased $40 billion dollars’ worth of shares at prices between $20 and $32 and their share price is now only $10.21, a total waste of shareholders’ money.

When corporations direct resources to buy back shares on this scale, they reduce their ability to reinvest profits more meaningfully in the company in terms of R&D, new equipment, higher wages, paid medical leave, retirement benefits and worker retraining.

It’s no coincidence that at the same time that corporate stock buybacks have reached record highs, the median wages of average workers have remained relatively stagnant. Far too many workers have watched corporate executives cash in on corporate stock buybacks while they get handed a pink slip.

Recently, Walmart announced plans to spend $20 billion on a share repurchase program while laying off thousands of workers and closing dozens of Sam’s Club stores. Using a fraction of that amount, the company could have raised hourly wages of every single Walmart employee to $15, according to an analysis by the Roosevelt Institute.

Walmart is not alone. Harley Davidson authorized a 15 million share stock-repurchase around the same time it announced it would close a plant in Kansas City, Mo. And Wells Fargo has spent billions on corporate stock buybacks while openly plotting to lay off thousands of workers in the coming years.

Senators:  Sanders-Schumer propose a bill to limit buybacks

Their  bill would prohibit a corporation from buying back its own stock unless it invests in workers and communities first, including things like paying all workers at least $15 an hour, providing seven days of paid sick leave, and offering decent pensions and more reliable health benefits.

They point out:

The past two years have been extremely disappointing for millions of workers. President Trump promised the typical American household a $4,000 pay raise as he pushed for his tax giveaway to the rich. The reality, however, is that from December 2017 to December 2018, real wages for average workers have gone up by just $9.11 a week. Why should a company whose pension program is underfunded be able to buy back stock before shoring up the pension fund?

Stock buybacks don’t benefit the vast majority of Americans because large stockholders tend to be wealthier. Nearly 85 percent of all stocks owned by Americans belong to the wealthiest 10 percent of households. So when a company buys back its stock, boosting its value, the benefits go overwhelmingly to shareholders and executives, not workers.

What do you think? Should government limit share buybacks?

 

 

Advertisements

Yield hunting in the Dogs of the Dow

poker_sympathy

Investing in the Dogs of the Dow as a strategy dates back to 1991 from a book “Beating the Dow” by Michael O’Higgins. The Dogs of the Dow are the 10 highest dividend yielding stocks within the Dow 30. They are called investment “Dogs” because rising dividend yields tend to be a function of falling prices.

It is a simple strategy of allocating an equal amount of funds into each of these 10 stocks and holding them for a year. Normally, an investor would need to only rid about two to three stocks every year and replace them with different ones. These stocks are typically replaced because their dividend yields have fallen out of the top 10 because the stock price has either increased in value or have reduced their dividend payment. (Sometimes a stock, like GE that has fallen on hard times is removed from the DJIA altogether.)

Why am I hunting for yield in the Dogs of the Dow

  • My retirement accounts contain a large percentage of  U.S. dollar holdings.
  • I am a retired Canadian senior who requires income from my investments to pay bills.
  • Dividend stocks provide income and some downward protection during volatile markets.
  • Historically, Dow stocks have been very stable companies that can weather any market decline with their solid balance sheets and strong fundamentals.
  • The current yield on the dogs of the Dow are higher than the yield on 2 & 10 year U.S. treasuries
  • The Canadian dollar is currently trading at a 32% discount to the U.S. dollar which increases the income from holding U.S. stocks.

Dogs of the Dow 2019

Stock Symbol Company Name 2018 Close Dividend Yield
IBM International Business Machines 113.67 5.52%
XOM Exxon Mobil 68.19 4.81%
VZ Verizon Communications 56.22 4.29%
CVX Chevron 108.79 4.12%
PFE Pfizer 43.65 3.30%
KO Coca-Cola 47.35 3.29%
JPM JP Morgan Chase 97.62 3.28%
PG Procter & Gamble 91.92 3.12%
CSCO Cisco Systems 43.33 3.05%
MRK Merck 76.41 2.88%

At first glance, IBM has a very tempting dividend yield. However, I warned my readers that IBM wasn’t a good investment back in 2015 when Warren Buffett lost 11.8% on his IBM shares. Buffett has sold all his IBM shares for an estimated 2 billion dollar lost. The trend has been downward ever since and I don’t see a turn around anytime soon.

Warren Buffett looses $500 million on IBM’s Bad Quarterly Results

Oil stocks have been very volatile due to slower world economic growth, over-supply concerns and fears of a 2020 recession. I am eliminating  both Chevron and Exxon Mobil as potential buys.

I am using fundamentals to eliminate Coca- Cola, Merck and P&G because of their high price earnings ratios compared to the rest of the stock market. Plus, Coco-Cola and Merck have high dividend payout ratios which will make it difficult for them to increase dividend payouts going forward.

J.P. Morgan has never been a Dog of the Dow until this year. U.S. banks have seen their net interest margins decrease due a flattening  yield curve. In simple terms, they are paying more interest on deposits but loan demand is weak so they are getting less loan interest. U.S. banks have under performed the over all market. This is a possible turnaround candidate if economic growth comes in stronger than expected.

Verizon and Pfizer have been Dogs of the Dow for the past five years and have fairly good fundamentals. They both have stable share prices, low payout ratios and reasonable price earnings ratios. These two stocks are possible buys for income.

Dec. 2018 Verizon $52.93 4.46% Pfizer $36.22 3.75%
Dec. 2017 Verizon $53.38 4.33% Pfizer $32.48 3.94%
Dec. 2016 Verizon $46.22 4.89% Pfizer $32.28 3.72%
Dec. 2015 Verizon $46.78 4.70% Pfizer $31.15 3.60%
Dec. 2014 Verizon $49.14 4.31% Pfizer $30.63 3.40%

I think that Cisco is strong buy. Cisco has been a Dog of the Dow for the past 4 years and their share price continues to increase in value. During those years, Cisco has maintain a consistent 3% dividend yield by increasing their annual dividend.

Dec. 2018 Cisco 38.3 3.03%
Dec. 2017 Cisco 30.22 3.44%
Dec. 2016 Cisco 27.16 3.09%
Dec. 2015 Cisco 22.43 3.03%

Unfortunately, past performance is no guarantee of future returns. Please do your own research, this post is for educational purposes only!

 

Making a new budget despite a failing budget in 2018

Image result for budget

 

You would think that a former financial planner could put together an accurate budget. Unfortunately, the best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry. (This saying is in “To a Mouse” by Robert Burns)

No matter how careful I am in planning a budget, something may still go wrong. My central air conditioner failed last year even though it wasn’t that old. Plus, I didn’t realize that the life cycle of my stand up freezer is only 10 years and that hearing aids need to be replaced every 4 to 5 years. Replacing all these items was not in my budget and very expensive.

However, my emergency fund did cover other unexpected break downs like having to replace my old treadmill, workout television and to buy a new refrigerator. Needless to say, 2018 was a year of unforeseen expenses.

Projecting my retirement income for 2018 also missed it mark. Some of my Canadian dividend stocks cut their dividends which not only reduced their payouts but caused their share value to drop.

I offset some of my lost income by doing some tax loss selling which will generate an income tax refund in 2019. Plus my new hearing aids are tax-deductible which makes their purchase a little less painful.

Some tips to avoid budget failure

  1. Don’t guess, there are plenty of ways to track your spending. (Internet banking, credit card statements, mobile apps just to name a few.

  2. Don’t forget to include birthday, weddings and Christmas gifts in your budget. You can rack up credit card debt by unplanned gift giving, especially during the holidays.

  3. Have a realistic emergency fund. Too many people live paycheck to paycheck. For example; the U.S. government shutdown is not only hurting government employees but contract workers who won’t get any back pay. One solution if you have trouble saving is a low-interest personal line of credit which is better than using your credit card for emergencies. 

  4. Your budget should be flexible, it isn’t written in stone. It isn’t something to keep you from spending moneyA budget is a tool to provide you with information to manage your finances. It can help find money that you can spend where it will give you the most enjoyment.

  5.  Think of a budget as a money road map. Sometimes you will come across bad weather, road closures and construction detours. Don’t give up if your budget doesn’t work out the way you planned.

It’s always a shame when you work hard and don’t get any benefit from the money that you have earned. Get in the habit of making a budget every year. Life is too short to live paycheck to paycheck.

Santa Claus rally, No, No, No?

Image result for santa claus rally

Is there any hope for a Santa Claus rally this year? What are the chances the markets could reverse the worst December since 1931?

A Santa Claus rally, which would begin on Monday, is a very specific event. It is the tendency for the market to rise in the last five trading days of the year and the first two of the New Year. According to the Stock Trader’s Almanac, it is good for an average gain of 1.3% in the S&P since 1950.

What caused the Dow Jones Industrial Average to have its worst week since the financial crisis in 2008, down nearly 7 percent and cause the Nasdaq to close down into bear market territory?

  1. The Federal Reserve’s rate hike on Wednesday drove the losses this week and investors were hoping for a more dovish tone regarding future rate hikes. Despite the fact that Chairman Powell reduced the projected number rate hikes from three to two and reduced the neutral rate to 2.8% from 3%.
  2. In my humble opinion, President Trump is partly to blame for the severity of the losses this week due to his criticism of the Fed.  He backed Powell into a corner and forced him to show that the Fed is an independent institution. (the Fed could have put more emphasis on being data dependent) According to some reports, Trump has also discussed firing Powell privately because of his frustration with stock market losses in recent months.
  3. In an extensive interview at the White House on Thursday, Trump’s trade adviser, Peter Navarro said that it would be “difficult” for the U.S. and China to arrive at an agreement after the 90-day period of talks unless Beijing was prepared for a full overhaul of its trade and industrial practices.
  4. Political chaos in Washington with partial government shutdown, sudden withdrawal of troops out of Syria and the resignation of Defensive Secretary Mattis.

Investors are still worried about:

  • A slowdown in economic growth as more companies scale back their sales growth and profit outlook for 2019
  • Fear that a flat yield curve will invert if the Fed continues to hike short-term interest rates
  • The unwinding of the Fed’s balance sheet will reduce the availability of credit for corporations
  • The trade war with China will escalate causing more inflation
  • More economists are jumping on the recession bandwagon for 2020
  • Political chaos in Washington will get even worse when the Democrats take power in January

A dead cat bounce is a possibility in January

Image result for dead cat bounce

dead cat bounce is a small short-lived recovery from a prolonged decline or a bear market that is followed by the continuation of the down turn. You need nerves of steel to trade a dead cat bounce but for long-term investors it could be a good time to reduce market risk and re-balance your portfolio.

Image result for merry christmas cat

U.S. Politics interfering with my financial blog

Image result for trump cartoon as a crook

 

It has been a couple of months since my last blog post. Upheaval in U.S. politics makes writing a financial blog very difficult. Who wants to read about financial issues when history is being made in U.S. politics.

I was in University during Watergate and watched as President Nixon was forced to resign. I remember his famous speech “I am not a crook.” Could history repeat itself with another President leaving office in disgrace?

According to the Washington Post, Trump has made 6,420 false or misleading claims over 649 days. Fact checking departments have been working overtime trying to keep up will all the misleading claims made by President Trump. The King of lies has been dominating all forms of media.

No collusion with Russia, yet 16 people have interacted with Russians

  1. Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort
  2. Senior Trump campaign official Rick Gates
  3. Former national security adviser Michael Flynn
  4. Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr.
  5. White House senior adviser Jared Kushner
  6. Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos
  7. Former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page
  8. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions
  9. Trump campaign official JD Gordon
  10. Former Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone
  11. Former Trump campaign aide Michael Caputo
  12. Trump associate Erik Prince
  13. White House official Avi Berkowit
  14. Former Trump attorney Michael Cohen
  15. White House senior adviser Ivanka Trump
  16. Trump business associate Felix Sater

Less than two years into Trump’s presidency, his business associates, political advisers and family members are being probed, along with the practices of his late father. On Friday, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke became the fourth Cabinet member to leave under an ethical cloud.

His former campaign chairman Paul Manafort is in jail. His former attorney and “fixer” Michael Cohen is headed behind bars next year. His deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates is now a confessed felon. George Papadopoulos, a former member of his foreign policy advisory board, just got out of jail after flipping. His former national security adviser Michael Flynn may only avoid prison after turning on his former boss.

More inquiries into the Trump’s campaign, Trump’s transition, Trump’s inaugural committee and Trump’s presidency are now under active criminal investigation. The Trump Organization and his Foundation are also under civil investigation. Trump University has already been deemed a fraud.

Now that the Democrats have control of the house of representatives, more oversight will spark even more investigations of the Trump administration in 2019. No end in sight to U.S. politics dominating all forms of media.

Hoping to get back to writing about financial topics soon!

 

 

Why Trump’s zero tariffs & zero subsides is a pipe dream

Trump campaigned on getting better trading deals starting with the renegotiation of NAFTA.  The loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs is the main reason that the Trump administration has criticized NAFTA and other trade deals. According to the CFR, the U.S. auto sector lost roughly 350,000 jobs between 1994 and 2016. Many of those jobs were taken up by workers in Mexico, where the auto sector added over 400,000 jobs in the same period.

A few reasons why zero tariffs alone don’t work

  • Labour intensive manufacturing will tend to locate where employee wages and benefits are the lowest.
  • Local and federal tax rates are another factor when it comes to plant locations.
  • Input costs like regulations, transportation and power rates are just a few examples of factors in plant location considerations.
  • It makes economic sense to locate near the biggest market for the product or service.

Bottom line, can the Trump administration force China and Mexico to pay $25.00 a hour to assemble cars? Are American consumers willing to pay an extra $1,400 to $7,000 for a new car if Trump imposes 25% tariff on the auto sector? How about $3,000 for a new I-phone that is made in America?

For argument sake, I do believe that reducing tariffs among developed countries does make sense. However, the other problem is fluctuations  in currencies which governments in general have little or no control over. For example, only yesterday, President Trump doubled the tariffs on Turkish steel and aluminum because of the drastic fall in value of the Turkish lira.

The hard fact is zero tariffs are not feasible and corporations are not patriotic. Corporate executives are more concern about keeping their shareholders happy and ensuring a very generous executive compensation package. Wage growth in the U.S. has been stagnant for many years and there are no signs that the corporate tax cuts have trickled down to employee wages.

Is eliminating government subsides even possible?

My short answer is no. The great recession of 2008-09 would have turned into another great depression if governments’ world-wide didn’t bail out their troubled banks. How many jobs would have been lost in the auto sector if the U.S. government didn’t bail out Chrysler and GM? (Does too big to fail, sound familiar)

Severe weather conditions make it difficult for governments to get rid of agricultural subsidies. Plus, governments can use subsidies to ensure that farmers produce the right amount of crops or meat to serve their population. There is also a safety issue and a cost benefit to using your own food sources rather than relying on importing food from other countries.

I could go on and on with other examples of industries that require some form of government help. Not all subsides are bad. Think about the millions of people who use public transportation. How expensive would it be, if it wasn’t subsidized by government?

All comments are welcome!