5 ms·

The sane way to do this would have been to give the handouts on condition of no stock buybacks for 10 years and cap total exec compensation for similar amount o

by vxNsr 4y ago

The sane way to do this would have been to give the handouts on condition of no stock buybacks for 10 years and cap total exec compensation for similar amount of time for any company that accepts the handouts. This should be true for any company that accepts gov money. The gov doesn't give money to benefit the stockholders, they’re doing it to benefit the larger economy and country. Stock holder shouldn’t even be considered as beneficiaries in these deals.

djbebs 4y ago
Profit isn't a sin, and if you want shareholders to do something for you, why do you think they will want to do it if there is nothing in it for them?
- vxNsr 4y ago
  No one is asking shareholders to do anything… We’re having the government give the company money for a joint venture. If the company uses it wisely in the way they promise they would, everyone, including the shareholders benefit. If the company cynically takes the money, intentionally fails to uphold their side of the contract, and then rebuffs attempts by the government to reclaim the money, while that might be in the interest of the shareholders they haven’t actually done anything there and don’t deserve to benefit. In fact they should be punished (along with the executives) for being unethical.
  - jdasdf 4y ago
    >No one is asking shareholders to do anything… We’re having the government give the company money for a joint venture. If the company uses it wisely in the way they promise they would, everyone, including the shareholders benefit. The company belongs to the shareholders, that's what being a shareholder means. Let me quote you: >The sane way to do this would have been to give the handouts on condition of no stock buybacks for 10 years and cap total exec compensation for similar amount of time for any company that accepts the handouts. >This should be true for any company that accepts gov money. >The gov doesn't give money to benefit the stockholders, they’re doing it to benefit the larger economy and country. Stock holder shouldn’t even be considered as beneficiaries in these deals. You'll note that not a single word in that post said anything about the company not holding up its end of the bargain. And indeed you made no mention as to why "stock buybacks" or "total exec compensation" would prevent the company from holding up its end. Let's be clear here about what you're doing, you're so focused on hurting shareholders, you don't even care if the results you get are compatible with what you state you want.
Drblessing 4y ago
You have a great idea. It would be tough corralling the boards and execs of these companies to accept Gov money that limits their compensation. Still, with competition, one company would be incentivized to take the money.
- jdasdf 4y ago
  Why would there be competition, and why would any company take that deal, when it cannot benefit from it?
  - vxNsr 4y ago
    Why wouldn't it benefit? the idea would to be prevent giving a handout to the shareholders through unethical means. When you sign a contract with someone you are bound by the contract, for some reason you and most company executives are having trouble understanding that. They all (you) think, "if I can take someone else's money and run, then I should, my word and agreements be damned." That anathema to a civil society. I'll address your disingenuous reply to me above over here: Stock buybacks and executive bonuses are things you give out when the company is doing well -- through its own means, not when you get charity from the government because you screwed up for 30 years and failed to invest and innovate. If intel which had record profits last year and revenues in excess of $70billion needs a handout because it doesn't have the money to invest in the US, then it shouldn't be allowed to reward it's owners and failed executives until the US government gets a return on its investment. It takes 5 years to bring a fab online and 5 years to see the economic impact of that new fab, so 10 years before they're allowed to start rewarding their owners again. Or return the money early and then you can do stock buybacks, and phat exec bonuses.
    - jdasdf 4y ago
      > Why wouldn't it benefit? the idea would to be prevent giving a handout to the shareholders through unethical means. When you sign a contract with someone you are bound by the contract, for some reason you and most company executives are having trouble understanding that. They all (you) think, "if I can take someone else's money and run, then I should, my word and agreements be damned." That anathema to a civil society. Can you explain to me how shareholder benefit from such a deal when the deal is preventing them from benefiting from it? Why would shareholders (the owners of the company) ever voluntarily take such a deal? No one is saying agreements shouldn't be fulfilled, but I'd like to note that you still haven't explained why the company should ever take such a deal, when it does not benefit the shareholders (you know, the ones the company is supposed to be working for) >Stock buybacks and executive bonuses are things you give out when the company is doing well -- through its own means, not when you get charity from the government because you screwed up for 30 years and failed to invest and innovate. Why do you believe that's the case? Stock buybacks (like dividends) are merely ways to put cash from the right pocket (the companies bank accounts) into the left pocket (the bank accounts of the shareholders), shareholders own the cash all the same. There is nothing immoral or wrong about them.

by vxNsr 4y ago

djbebs 4y ago

Profit isn't a sin, and if you want shareholders to do something for you, why do you think they will want to do it if there is nothing in it for them?

vxNsr 4y ago
No one is asking shareholders to do anything… We’re having the government give the company money for a joint venture. If the company uses it wisely in the way they promise they would, everyone, including the shareholders benefit. If the company cynically takes the money, intentionally fails to uphold their side of the contract, and then rebuffs attempts by the government to reclaim the money, while that might be in the interest of the shareholders they haven’t actually done anything there and don’t deserve to benefit. In fact they should be punished (along with the executives) for being unethical.
- jdasdf 4y ago
  >No one is asking shareholders to do anything… We’re having the government give the company money for a joint venture. If the company uses it wisely in the way they promise they would, everyone, including the shareholders benefit. The company belongs to the shareholders, that's what being a shareholder means. Let me quote you: >The sane way to do this would have been to give the handouts on condition of no stock buybacks for 10 years and cap total exec compensation for similar amount of time for any company that accepts the handouts. >This should be true for any company that accepts gov money. >The gov doesn't give money to benefit the stockholders, they’re doing it to benefit the larger economy and country. Stock holder shouldn’t even be considered as beneficiaries in these deals. You'll note that not a single word in that post said anything about the company not holding up its end of the bargain. And indeed you made no mention as to why "stock buybacks" or "total exec compensation" would prevent the company from holding up its end. Let's be clear here about what you're doing, you're so focused on hurting shareholders, you don't even care if the results you get are compatible with what you state you want.

Drblessing 4y ago

You have a great idea. It would be tough corralling the boards and execs of these companies to accept Gov money that limits their compensation. Still, with competition, one company would be incentivized to take the money.

jdasdf 4y ago
Why would there be competition, and why would any company take that deal, when it cannot benefit from it?
- vxNsr 4y ago
  Why wouldn't it benefit? the idea would to be prevent giving a handout to the shareholders through unethical means. When you sign a contract with someone you are bound by the contract, for some reason you and most company executives are having trouble understanding that. They all (you) think, "if I can take someone else's money and run, then I should, my word and agreements be damned." That anathema to a civil society. I'll address your disingenuous reply to me above over here: Stock buybacks and executive bonuses are things you give out when the company is doing well -- through its own means, not when you get charity from the government because you screwed up for 30 years and failed to invest and innovate. If intel which had record profits last year and revenues in excess of $70billion needs a handout because it doesn't have the money to invest in the US, then it shouldn't be allowed to reward it's owners and failed executives until the US government gets a return on its investment. It takes 5 years to bring a fab online and 5 years to see the economic impact of that new fab, so 10 years before they're allowed to start rewarding their owners again. Or return the money early and then you can do stock buybacks, and phat exec bonuses.
  - jdasdf 4y ago
    > Why wouldn't it benefit? the idea would to be prevent giving a handout to the shareholders through unethical means. When you sign a contract with someone you are bound by the contract, for some reason you and most company executives are having trouble understanding that. They all (you) think, "if I can take someone else's money and run, then I should, my word and agreements be damned." That anathema to a civil society. Can you explain to me how shareholder benefit from such a deal when the deal is preventing them from benefiting from it? Why would shareholders (the owners of the company) ever voluntarily take such a deal? No one is saying agreements shouldn't be fulfilled, but I'd like to note that you still haven't explained why the company should ever take such a deal, when it does not benefit the shareholders (you know, the ones the company is supposed to be working for) >Stock buybacks and executive bonuses are things you give out when the company is doing well -- through its own means, not when you get charity from the government because you screwed up for 30 years and failed to invest and innovate. Why do you believe that's the case? Stock buybacks (like dividends) are merely ways to put cash from the right pocket (the companies bank accounts) into the left pocket (the bank accounts of the shareholders), shareholders own the cash all the same. There is nothing immoral or wrong about them.