Meanwhile, Joe Average, who ended up running a food truck when Wells Fargo "right sized" him during the last recession, will find a comfortable slab of concrete upon which to rest his head, under the viaduct.
Stock buybacks had A LOT of problems people don't discuss.
But this isn't really what ruined the airlines.
UAL -- the hardest hit and worst buyback offender -- bought back $1.2Bn in 2015, $2Bn in 2016, $3Bn in 2017, $1.2Bn in 2018, and $3Bn in 2019.
That's a total of $10.4Bn. To my knowledge, less than 4% of that was on borrowed money.
They returned roughly ~95% of free cashflow to investors mostly through buybacks instead of dividends.
UAL's Cash on Hand increased 25% in 2019 to $4.9Bn.
Even if they had that $10.4Bn, they could not get through Coronavirus. Airlines have HIGHLY volatile margins on INSANE amounts of revenue. None of them could withstand a 70% decrease in air traffic for a year.
Maybe they're all terribly run. I dunno. They were pretty bad buyback offenders, but far from the worst. And buybacks are not what ruined them.
Most companies keep less than 10% of Op Ex in cash on hand. UAL's Op Ex is about $38Bn/year. A lot of people think it's healthy for a business to have 25-50% of Op Ex in cash. For UAL, that would've been $9.5-$19Bn.
They could've been in that range if they didn't issue any dividends or buybacks since 2014. But they still wouldn't be able to make it through this.
And, no, I'm not saying that they should've done buybacks at the rate they did (or at all). I'm just saying this isn't what ruined them, and they are far from the worst offenders here. They're just the hardest hit.
Edit:
Curious if anyone familiar with the industry can comment:
How much of Airlines' Op Ex is fixed? How much can they realistically cut? I don't know enough about how this "mandatory" flight schedule works. How many flights do they need to keep flying to keep their gates?
Ignoring Tech industry, most companies on earth could not withstand a 70% drop in revenue. The world we are in today is that everyone is trying to go for Big Revenue and Slim Profit Margin. A side effect from QE or worsen by it.
How many tech companies have withstood a 70% drop in revenue? BlackBerry comes to mind.
The correct thing would be to nationalise them if they go bankrupt, not to bail out the investors that earned money with the explicit expectation of risk.
And I say that having lost 10k in stock value in the past month. Still my fault and my risk and I don't deserve to be bailed out for it.
No insurance policy covers war. This is pretty much like a war. It's uninsurable because it affects everyone.
Bailouts in 2020 are not gifts to the reckless rich like in 2008, they're like the Marshall plan.
I've been seeing this on twitter a lot. Is there some context you can provide for why these particular repurchases were in bad taste, given no awareness of the upcoming pandemic. I am assuming you don't view repurchases as 'selfish' generally.
Improvements in leg room, amenities, services, infrastructure, etc, are a form of capital return to customers.
When executive compensation is tied to operating profit or market capitalization, there is an incentive to reduce the product quality (the air traveler experience, in this case) to the minimum competitive level and boost the share price. A buyback boosts the share price in two inter-related ways. First, it reduces the amount of shares available in the secondary market (the "float"), which distributes the market cap across a smaller number of shares. Second, it provides artificial demand for the stock, impacting the price upward by buying shares.
Warren Buffett has stated that he likes investing in equities in part because companies reinvest their profits in their business. A buyback doesn't do that because when you spend $5B on your own stock, you're not spending it on providing a better experience to your customers, and you're not spending it on R&D. You're just spending it on concentrating shareholder ownership and driving up the stock price.
Guess who often gets paid in shares? Executives. It's common for a CEO to get a small portion of his compensation as salary and a large portion as shares and options.
The point is that these companies could have reinvested that money in their business, but instead they aimed to boost share price and financial optics.
That's not to say the airlines don't care about the little guy. Some shareholders are regular folks. Plus, at least Delta paid out a bonus to employees a few months ago. But there is indeed a reason to dislike large buybacks.
> Improvements in leg room, amenities, services, infrastructure, etc, are a form of capital return to customers.
And bailouts are a form of wealth redistribution from people of modest means to wealthy executives and investors who, it turns out, are actually not willing to shoulder the risk associated with passive profits.
> That's not to say the airlines don't care about the little guy.
They actually like the little guy, you can fit more of them on a plane.
In fact if airlines had actually reinvested that money, they would be even more fucked up than they are now. At least now they have free cash flow to make a temporary drop in revenue hurt less. Reinvesting money in the corporate world often involves converting cash flow into debt, which they’re probably going to have to do now to meet their existing financial obligations. Much better than if they were midway through financing some large fleet expansion and had less FCF on hand to weather the travel slowdown
Point 1 is not super important because of the existence of qualified dividends.
Point 2 is like this: let's say I'm a company with 1000 outstanding shares valued at $100 each and want to pay a yearly dividend (for simplicity) of $5/share. All market movements notwithstanding and absent any changes, that means I'm basically giving investors a 5% yearly ROI. But, let's say I instead bought back my shares with all my earnings. The first year, I buy back 5% of the outstanding shares. Now there are 950 outstanding shares and total earnings are still $5000/year. Next year each remaining shareholder gets an extra 5% of earnings per share (this compounds). And rather than pay tax each year on dividends, shareholders defer all their taxes until they exit their position.
One argument is that dividends aren't really worse in this case because investors could still choose to spend the cash on purchasing more shares, accomplishing the same thing. But the deferred taxes change the math.
It's better as a shareholder in many cases to be able to control when you recognize the gain from the return to investors.
Too bad, I guess anyone thinking outside the box and pointing out that our herd is going off a cliff is problematic...
This would make buybacks worse than dividends for everyone who isn't a shareholder.
Buybacks are an accident of tax law and ought to be taxed the same way as dividends.
The problem is it's really the other way around -- reinvested dividends should be taxed like buybacks, i.e. taxed when the purchased shares are sold.
By contrast, taxing buybacks like current dividends would create a really grisly incentive for corporations to hoard a giant pile of money, since that would be the remaining way to defer the tax. This is already what international corporations do with offshore profits because of a similar incentive to defer corporate income tax, and it's a huge problem.
We have a policy of allowing people to avoid tax on investment gains until the investments are cashed out -- this is what a 401k is all about. We might as well make it consistent across the board so it stops creating all of these perverse incentives. (That would reduce the amount of tax collected, but it would also remove most of the justification for taxing capital gains at a lower rate than earned income, so changing both at once would about balance out.)
If you own a restaurant and a sports stadium opens next door which causes the value of the land to double overnight, you'd suddenly owe $50,000 in capital gains tax, but what if you don't have $50,000 in cash? You'd have to sell your restaurant to pay the tax on it.
If you write some software for your small business and start to license it to people for $50 each, how much is your corporation which owns the copyright now worth? Ten thousand dollars? Ten billion dollars? It depends how many copies you expect to sell. But the government would have to appraise it. What do you do if they appraise it as worth tens of millions of dollars? You'd immediately owe more than a million dollars in capital gains tax, but it's on the appraised value of an asset that may not turn into that much revenue for years -- or at all. And with no guarantee you could even find anyone willing to pay you that much for the business.
There are good reasons not to collect the tax until the investment is converted to cash.
And generally speaking better leg room, amenities, and services dont sell more tickets. Your competitor will be gaining on you via even lower price. As shown by all the budget Airline. It was the customer than decides the more expensive plane ticket wasn't worth it.
I am not sure I have a solution to this problem.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/16/opinion/airlines-bailout....
It is also prudent for a corporation to have a rainy day fund for unpredictable events like an upcoming pandemic.
An individual who didn't properly save can go bankrupt in a time of emergency. Likewise, a company which didn't properly save should also go bankrupt in a time of emergency. Look at Apple or Berkshire Hathaway. Both have a massive safety net in the form of liquid cash for hard times.
To that end, any French company at risk of going under will be allowed to stop paying rent and taxes during the shutdown.
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=https:/...
If everybody stopped paying debts and rent, the financial industry could crash overnight as suddenly nobody has the cash flow to pay each other any more. And that would trickle down immediately - not only as banks and property management groups go out of business, but in property tax revenues, pensions, people on fixed incomes, and then all the second and third order effects: insurance and reinsurance, massive market panics, etc. It sounds nice on an individual basis but the risk is insanely huge
I think the simplest solution is for the fed/government to simply give everybody cash, since the root of the problem is that a lot of people have temporarily lost their incomes due to their jobs being essentially banned in response to the pandemic (eg a lot of people in retail outside of supermarkets/food). Anything that involves nonpayment is extremely risky
Wow!. Thank you I have argued that in crisis rent along with many other contract obligation should be exempted. I cant believe a government has actually done it.
We must have a rent holiday if those businesses and their workers are to survive.
We'll get a lot of rent forgiveness naturally. If a strip mall has some tenants who cannot make rent in this crisis, who are they going to get who can pay? The pragmatic approach is to keep your existing tenants, because their survival is your strip mall's survival.
Many land owners would already prefer to leave their buildings empty for years over even considering negotiating on rent. I doubt anything can change their minds.
We already have that. I pay huge property taxes every year and so does everyone else who owns land.
Taxes are a way to pay for communal goods. We don't pay enough of them - our obsession with cutting them is part and parcel of the disastrous response to SARS2-CoV.
I very much like having a government that can step in during emergencies and distribute the load. I like living in a society where we care about other people to.
Abolishing taxes is strictly "me first, fuck the rest". I suggest people who like this approach try living in Somalia for a while, that's their desired end state.
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/11/27/the-paradox-o...
For example let’s say I have a 100 unit apartment building. If I maintain a 20% vacancy rate target I can charge an average of $1000/mo/unit. But to set a price at which my vacancies get filled very quickly, to hit a 5% vacancy rate, maybe I need to charge $700/mo/unit. In that case I’m making less money than before - $80k/mo vs $66.5k/mo.
The idea here is to minimise the long term damage caused by people being forced into liquidation as a route to recoup losses and increase protection for individuals who are also temporarily affected.
Every large retail store is open (so far) in Southern California, with most retailers' inventory being purchased at full retail prices.
I am not sure why the retailers don't switch to curbside-pickup model exclusively, instead preferring hordes of customers roaming around every single morning, but from what I hear, Instacart and store-specific delivery programs are overwhelmed.
Every morning I go to the grocery store in my neighborhood looking for toilet paper and every morning there is some new staple nearly out of stock. I still have a few rolls left, and amazon seems to have a few remaining in stock, so things aren't dire yet, but they are getting concerning.
This is also a city where not too long ago the social contract evaporated after hearing a verdict, requiring military intervention to restore order. An armed militia formerly stood on the roof of the store I scoured today for toilet paper. I'm fearful of what will happen when everyone realizes they can no longer wipe their ass or buy rice and the working class starts getting laid off en masse, and when this virus starts ravaging the 150k+ homeless in southern california.
It's partially due to hoarding, partially due to panic buying, and partially due to the lockdown of many schools and businesses, which caused most eating+drinking+related activity to move home, raising household demands on food and toilet paper above normal.
Also, if you're supposed to show your face in public as infrequently as possible, then instead of 10 shopping trips you're better off making 1 shopping trip buying 10x the stuff. Which exacerbates availability.
I suggest we start addressing inequalities and maybe all cut back a bit and share the burden, instead of hoarding now and then being surprised that the people unable to hoard object to that idea when nothing is left for them, at all. That means taking care of the working class and the homeless, too.
I've had Amazon Fresh cancel two orders so far so I'm not sure how open they are.
Larger businesses have a proportionately larger need for money to sustain themselves. Big business doesn't mean rich business. Look what's happening to the airlines.
“I don’t think we’re ever going to lose money again,” -Doug Parker, American Airlines CEO, 2017.
Let 'em fail.
But letting the weakest one fail as a warning to the others that the bailouts are over and perhaps they should learn to save against rainy days isn't the worst idea.
Given climate change, air travel is not a public good we should be prioritising.
"Too big to fail?" We fell for that once before.
Airline comes out nimble and debt free. Average Joe still has airline competition. Shareholders get wiped out, but that’s the risk you run for yield.
I am in the tourism industry, owning a small-medium hotel.
If I stop paying any loans and generally I am left out of cash-flow I am pretty much screwed for the next few years, if not closing down.
I know though a few people around my area with massive resorts and a debt over 100mil that have already stopped paying quite a few loans themselvs and they are getting away with a slap on their wrist. The gov gets involved cause the debt is enough to damage a bank, and the people that are going to be left without a job are enough to cause a mini crisis. Then the bank itself... well for them its not just about ceasing the asset as its gonna be a hard thing to sell or manage.
Meanwhile the owners are taking out massive salaries + bonuses for their personal accounts and don't care about their balance sheet being a mess and their debts growing.