News Dump Thursday: More Blowback Edition

Irony Alert: Syrian Army attacks U.S.-backed rebels with U.S. weapons captured from ISIS

The Syrian Arab Army’s (SAA) Tiger Forces arrived in northern Hama this week with a big surprise from their previous operations in the Deir Ezzor Governorate.
Units from the Tiger Forces were seen armed with US-manufactured weapons that were seized from the Islamic State (ISIS) during the two month long battle in Deir Ezzor.
According to a military source in Hama, the Syrian Army’s Tiger Forces are planning to use the US-manufactured weapons against the jihadist rebels in the upcoming battle for the Idlib Governorate.
Among the US-manufactured weapons transferred to the Idlib front were a large number of TOW missiles that were previously supplied by Washington to the rebel forces in Syria before they were later sold to the Islamic State.

CIA: War between U.S. and Turkey possible

As Turkey prepares to launch an operation against Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) terrorists in Syria’s Afrin, the U.S. has threatened war with Turkey in the PKK-occupied city, in a report published by the CIA-affiliated Rand Corporation.
The most recent report, titled “U.S. Strategic Interests in the Middle East and Implications for the Army,” was published by the Rand Corporation, an American think tank closely affiliated with the CIA.
The report concluded that opposing interests between Ankara and Washington may lead to possible clashes between the two countries, deeming a potential confrontation to be “not entirely out of the question.”

Iraqi Kurdistan falls into chaos

Two opposition parties, the Gorran and the Kurdistan Islamic Group (Komal), have withdrawn from Iraq's semi-autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), party sources said.
The withdrawals came Wednesday after two days of violence in the region, as Kurdish demonstrators protest years of austerity measures and unpaid public sector salaries.

Trump tries to bully the entire world; fails

The United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly backed a measure critical of President Donald Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel despite U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley’s warning that the move could put funding for their nations and the global body at risk.
The nonbinding UN resolution passed Thursday by a vote of 128-9, with 35 nations abstaining. Key U.S. allies backing the measure over Trump’s threats included the U.K., France, Italy, Japan and Germany. The U.S. was joined in opposition by countries including Guatemala, Nauru and Micronesia. Abstentions included Australia, Canada and Argentina.
“The United States will remember this day when it was singled out for attack in the General Assembly,” Haley said at the UN podium ahead of the vote. “We will remember it when so many countries come calling on us, as they often do, to pay even more. This vote will be remembered.”
“We were all asked to vote no or face the consequences,” Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said before Thursday’s vote. “Some even threatened to cut development aid. This is bullying. It is unethical to think that the votes and dignity of member states are for sale.”

Saudi-Iran War? It's already here

When asked to address the question of what a Saudi-Iran war would look like, my first instinct is to ask the reader to look around because it is already happening. As the futurist William Gibson noted, “the future is already here — it’s just not very evenly distributed.” Already, Saudi Arabia and Iran are killing each other’s proxies, and indirectly are killing each other’s advisors and troops, in Yemen, Syria, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia’s Shiite Eastern Province.
The future is likely to look similar.

Big Surprise

Take Pfizer Inc., for instance. On Monday, the company, which was already committed to buying back $6.4 billion worth of its shares, announced that its board had authorized an additional $10 billion buyback, plus a 6 percent hike in its dividend, according to FiercePharma, an online trade publication. The news was directly linked to the new tax bill.
Or how about Oracle Corp? Since 2008, it has been spending between $4.2 billion and $5.2 billion on stock buybacks. With $52 billion stashed abroad, it announced last week that it would raise that by an additional $12 billion. Home Depot Inc.: $15 billion buyback announced on Dec. 6. Bank of America Corp.: $5 billion, Dec. 5. Mastercard Inc.: $4 billion, Dec. 5. A list compiled by Senate Democrats shows that in the space of 10 days in December, 29 companies announced close to $70 billion in buybacks. And that’s just the beginning. Wait ’til you see the mad rush after the bill becomes law.

This sounds very familiar

In the years after the financial crisis, buyout firms poured billions into auto finance, angling for the big profits that come with offering high-interest loans to buyers with the weakest credit. At rates of 11 percent or more, there was plenty to be made as sales boomed. But now, with new car demand waning, they’ve found the intense competition -- and the lax underwriting standards it fostered -- are taking a toll on profits.
Delinquencies on subprime loans made by non-bank lenders are soaring toward crisis levels. Fresh investment has dried up and some of the big banks, long seen as potential suitors, have pulled back from the auto lending business. To top it off, state regulators are circling the industry, asking whether it preyed on borrowers and put them in cars they couldn’t afford.
“The PE guys sailed into this thing with stars in their eyes. Some of the businesses have done fine and some haven’t,” said Chris Gillock, managing director at Colonnade Advisors, a boutique investment bank. But right now, “it’s about as out-of-favor a sector as I can think of.”

auto.PNG

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

snoopydawg's picture

Why are they doing it and how does it affect their company and stock prices? Financial stuff is over my head...

up
0 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

@snoopydawg
I was thinking about doing an essay about how some of the buybacks are actually mergers, and the number of companies on the stock exchange is shrinking.

up
0 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@gjohnsit

up
0 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

@snoopydawg
A publicly traded firm issues shares of stock to finance its acquisition of capital. After that shares are simply traded by people who think the stock is overvalued to people who think it's undervalued. Sometimes people sell stock because they have other uses for the money such as making a down payment on a house.

A corporation can raise money to acquire more capital by issuing more shares, using its earnings, or offering bonds (borrowing).

There are all sorts of ways of calculating the value of a corporation. You can multiply the number of outstanding shares times the stock's closing price at the end of a day. You can use more sophisticated calculations based on price/earnings ratios or a hundred other methods. Ultimately a share is worth what someone will pay for it.

Until fairly recently buying back shares was illegal for many reasons. Among them is the fact that everyone doesn't know the company is going to buy back shares at the same time. Those who are among the first to know might find it in their interest to increase their holdings.

Buying back shares doesn't alter the value of a corporation. If you reduce the number of shares each of the remaining shares should be worth more. But why does a company want to use proceeds from a tax cut to buy back shares? It appears that the company has no alternative use for the money that would allow the corporation to increase profitability. It doesn't see the value in buying additional capital. It doesn't see any value in increasing research and development. It doesn't present a very optimistic view of the company's future.

Shareholders are happy either because their shares have gone up or because they were glad to sell the shares at the offered price. Of particular note, buybacks are of special value to the company's executives who receive much of their compensation in the form of stock options.

This behavior is now widespread. A significant portion of the rise in the stock market can be attributed to buybacks. Why this should scare most of us is that it means a large number of companies see no value in investing in themselves. (Gjohnsit mentioned mergers, which are way beyond this explanation. Also, public companies are increasingly being taken private.)

Buybacks are the exact opposite of the kind of investments Republicans claim they expect to achieve with the corporate tax cuts. You won't get 6% growth per year with buybacks.

Let me stress again that this is a very simple (maybe even simple minded) explanation of a complex phenomenon.

up
0 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@FuturePassed

This helps to explain what they are and the purpose for them. I looked for the answer on the nets and I found similar ones like this.

up
0 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

@FuturePassed

As long as you're being nice enough to explain things in this area, can I beg you to pretty-please explain to a financial idiot how it makes sense for financial institutions to charge those with lower incomes a much greater interest rate on loans/mortgages 'to cover the risks of default', when the risks of default are thereby greatly increased, along with the costs, to those with less money - who often seem to wind up defaulting because of the higher interest rates and having to pay so much more than do those with more money?

Especially where long-term, large purchases are required, such as homes, which would be otherwise be far more often and easily paid off over time if this were made easier - as in the same as for higher-income people - rather than harder and more expensive, with bigger payments for lower-income (and still sinking) people who nonetheless need somewhere to live.

up
0 users have voted.

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.