Profile picture
Matthew Chapman
@fawfulfan
, 4 tweets, 1 min read Read on Twitter
So what?

It would not be the end of the world if most companies could not buy back stock. Buybacks were banned entirely until 1982.
If limiting buybacks to companies that pay a $15/hr min wage, offer 7 days of sick leave, and retirement accounts/pensions to employees would exclude most companies, we should ask why most companies don't offer their workers these things with corporate profits at a record high.
It's kind of astonishing to see, as a serious argument, that's it's not fair to restrict corporations from spending their profits to artificially jack up their stock price if they don't pay a living wage and benefits, because most of them don't pay a living wage and benefits.
Especially when you step back and realize that the first and foremost reason companies buy back their own stock is to goose the income of their executives. Why are we taking it as a given that it is of any inherent value to the economy for a business to do this?
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Matthew Chapman
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @fawfulfan see all

Profile picture
Matthew Chapman
@fawfulfan
So @HowardSchultz's logic is, "the system is broken because it can't tally votes for more than two people. Therefore I'm going to run as a third person and fix it."

That's like saying, "My house's wiring is dangerous, so I'm going to fix it by sticking a fork in this outlet."
What @HowardSchultz doesn't get is, it's not inherently bad there are only 2 parties. What's bad is that the parties overrepresent rich people who can afford to be in politics.

A self-funded billionaire buying his way into the race isn't the solution. It's the problem.
Further, @HowardSchultz only got into the race because of his distaste for the left-wing policies proposed by new pols like @AOC who, for once, were elected from the working class.

He sees himself as disrupting the status quo, but he's running against the only thing fighting it.
Read 3 tweets
Profile picture
Matthew Chapman
@fawfulfan
FYI: shooting down satellites, or using space as a battlefield in any way, is currently recognized as a war crime, and for good reason. If we let the international consensus break down and start having literal "star wars," the consequences could be disastrous.
For one thing, space-based missiles would be devastating. You could pretty easily design one that could destroy a city.

For another, even a war that just targeted satellites could down civilian comms systems, plunge countries into chaos, and render low-earth orbit unusable.
The thing about battles on land, water, or air, is that however deleterious they are to human life, the debris settles.

The debris from a space battle would last decades or centuries, and turn space into a 3-D minefield that threatens astronauts, cargo, and GPS for generations.
Read 3 tweets
Profile picture
Matthew Chapman
@fawfulfan
I think everyone, even defenders of the filibuster, recognizes the GOP turned it from a tool of consensus into a tool of obstruction.

The reason I still support having it is because the Senate is a malapportioned body. So a simple majority isn't really the will of the people.
I think the day I will support totally abolishing (or time-limiting) the filibuster is the day we change the Constitution so that each state gets one senator plus one each per four representatives.
Here's another idea.

Keep Senate apportionment as it is, and keep the filibuster, BUT change cloture rules so that instead of requiring 60 senators to end debate, it requires any-sized group of senators representing a majority of U.S. voters.
Read 5 tweets

Related threads

Profile picture
Brian Nelson, CFA
@ValuentumBrian
1/ I've spent the past few minutes understanding your perspective, and I think I do. After doing so, my conclusion is that perhaps it may be most important to have share buybacks put to a shareholder vote. Here's why...
2/ But first, I think I need to define what I characterize as a shareholder. I only consider a shareholder as someone that is holding the stock over the long haul, not someone that has sold it...
Technically, the proof of "aggregate return" is function that, as you mention, is irrespective of price, meaning that, hypothetically, a company can leverage significantly, buy back stock at astronomical prices, and essentially "bring forward" value from LT shareholders. 3/
Read 9 tweets
Profile picture
Andrew Walker
@AndrewRangeley
Never looked at $AER before, but $KKR's investment in Altavair (a competitor) has me interested. Here's some running highlights from AER's 2017 investor day.

ir.kkr.com/news-releases/…
$AER on the advantage of scale
By selling old planes, $AER gets increases their exposure to newer / more valuable planes. In addition, they sell the old planes at a premium and can use proceeds to buy back stock (which now has more new planes) at a discount
Read 15 tweets
Profile picture
Brendan Bernstein
@BMBernstein
Your weekly dose of "I need to buy a bunker" Market Reflexivity:

Pensions account for their future liabilities by discounting them at an est. return.

Most are projecting +7%/yr, but if you drop to 4%, CA's liability, for instance, goes up by $200bn

They sure as hell can't get that from treasuries with rock bottom rates.

And GMO is predicting *negative* 7 year returns for most stocks

So what do they do?
You move out on the risk curve and allocate to "alternatives" -- the alt coins of the real market.

Levered loan funds -- funds that invest in riskier loans -- are hitting all time record raises. I'm sure you've also noticed the massive vc raises too.
Read 13 tweets
Profile picture
Yassine Elmandjra
@yassineARK
1/ We often forget how the @FederalReserve, America’s central bank and the heart of the country’s banking system, truly came to be.

In this thread, I will lay out a fascinating, often overlooked, part of history:
2/ "In order to understand the Federal Reserve, we must first understand its origins and context. We must deconstruct the puzzle."
3/ In late 17th century, England suffered a devastating defeat by France in the Battle of Beachy Head. It was this defeat that became "the catalyst for England rebuilding itself as a global power."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of…
Read 32 tweets
Profile picture
Penny Midas Rollo
@PennyMidasRollo
001/ [article content in this tweet series 001-180 reproduced with permission from Martin Howe QC of Lawyers for Britain @lawyers4britain]
#quote "Leaving the EU on WTO terms: pulling down the barriers to world trade
Introduction: why prices will FALL after Brexit, not rise" /002
002/ #quote "Over the past couple of weeks, the media have been full of lurid scare stories about what will happen if the UK leaves the EU on WTO terms, because negotiations with the EU do not result in a withdrawal agreement." /003
#tariffs #NoDeal #Brexit #WTO #ProjectFear #shortages #food #medicines
003/ #quote "One of the most ridiculous and UNJUSTIFIED of these absurd scare stories is that it will lead to higher prices, and even shortages, of foods and medicines." /004
Read 180 tweets
Profile picture
Paul Krugman
@paulkrugman
So, since the tax cut those much-hyped bonuses amounted to $6 billion, while share buybacks were $171 billion. This looks really bad -- and media who helped the hype should be ashamed. But it's actually worse than it looks 1/ money.cnn.com/2018/02/16/inv…
Even the advocates of big corporate tax cuts didn't claim -- or at least their models didn't claim -- that they would lead to immediate wage gains. Instead, they were supposed to lead to an investment boom, which would raise labor demand over time 2/
But it looks as if companies are using the tax windfall to buy back stock -- basically pay off investors -- rather than ramping up spending on plant and equipment. This is exactly what critics of the tax cut said they'd do 3/
Read 4 tweets

Trending hashtags

#SuperBlueBloodMoon #smartcitirs #economists #schedules #au #license #price #freely #BlackLivesMatter #RMG #zones #fullmoonmadness #opendats #oranges #production #companies #Levi #FX #opemdata #integrated #tariffs #barriers #imports #FLYJOHNNYFLY #rights
Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!