Why are corporations doing so well as the economy struggles?

[Direckshun]

This is something I'd like to see your explanations on.

Corporations are recording record profits in 2012. Not good profits, record profits.

And yet our economy struggles at a little under 3% growth and a high unemployment rate.

Why, in your opinion, is the economy so bad yet businesses are doing so great?

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...orate-profits/

Record Corporate Profits
United States corporate profits reached a record high in the third quarter of this year, even adjusted for inflation, according to a report from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
By CATHERINE RAMPELL
November 29, 2012, 3:00 pm



The increase from the second quarter was entirely a result of stronger business at home. Profits received from American-owned businesses abroad fell slightly in the third quarter, which may not be surprising given the recession in Europe and the slowdown in China.

Additionally, all of the growth in domestic corporate profits was accounted for by the financial sector.

Domestic profits of financial corporations rose $71.3 billion in the third quarter, after falling $39.7 billion in the second. Domestic profits of nonfinancial corporations, on the other hand, decreased $1 billion in the third quarter, after rising $27.8 billion in the second quarter.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

Depends on the option but the options I received were of zero value until they were exercised. We were awarded so many shares at market price the day of option declaration. We could not exercise for 3 years and had to exercise in 10. To exercise we had to pay the option price.

Options are not a gift of stock. I recall only one option I received that was never exercised. I know a couple were dynamite with splits taking place. And a couple were not so much.

I know how options work. Our focus on stock options as compensation has encouraged gambling and short-term orientation. It basically says you get to keep money you make, but you're protected if things go south.

Another incentive was paid in the form of a Incentive award. That was stock that was given to the managers who earned them. No cost to the awardee. However, you paid regular income tax in the year of the award on the full value.

Another compensation was a Long Term Incentive. I don't even recall how that was supposed to work but I recall it didn't pay squat.

Do you have any actual examples of the things you rail against or is it just a global broad sweeping diatribe?

I am merely talking about your claim that determining executive compensation is a simple calculation. How are you valuing your options? Through Black-Scholles? Are you factoring in the opportunity cost of what that increase in compensation could have been spent on instead? There are multiple ways to calculate executive compensation and even those ways don't always account for everything.

And no, it is not a sweeping diatribe. I am not talking about average compensation. I am talking about median. Median isn't talking about a few bad eggs skewing the results. Median means that the result is true for at least half of the list if not more.

[HonestChieffan]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I know how options work. Our focus on stock options as compensation has encouraged gambling and short-term orientation. It basically says you get to keep money you make, but you're protected if things go south.



I am merely talking about your claim that determining executive compensation is a simple calculation. How are you valuing your options? Through Black-Scholles? Are you factoring in the opportunity cost of what that increase in compensation could have been spent on instead? There are multiple ways to calculate executive compensation and even those ways don't always account for everything.

And no, it is not a sweeping diatribe. I am not talking about average compensation. I am talking about median. Median isn't talking about a few bad eggs skewing the results. Median means that the result is true for at least half of the list if not more.

Options in the USA chart are valued at issue price. Thus it does not reflect true value as the share price can drop and the option has no value or a negative value.

There is no cost to the company for issuing an option until it is exercised. Thus there is no opportunity cost.

You are absolutely wrong on the impact on the decision making by issuing options. In the case I referenced, three years had to pass before the option was exercise able. That creates agape between short and longer term decisions. And they can go ten years so if the company does have a downturn, it may be 10 years before they have value.

I think your position would have merit if you had a specific that you could reference. Just railing against the man is not getting it done.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

Options in the USA chart are valued at issue price. Thus it does not reflect true value as the share price can drop and the option has no value or a negative value.

There is no cost to the company for issuing an option until it is exercised. Thus there is no opportunity cost.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020700044.html
This explains it as well as I ever could. Interpreting executive compensation is extremely difficult and most will tell you there are several different approaches you can take.

You are absolutely wrong on the impact on the decision making by issuing options. In the case I referenced, three years had to pass before the option was exercise able. That creates agape between short and longer term decisions. And they can go ten years so if the company does have a downturn, it may be 10 years before they have value.

I think your position would have merit if you had a specific that you could reference. Just railing against the man is not getting it done.

I've done a ton of research on this. Business Week. Wharton. HBR. Wall Street Journal. There is overwhelming criticism of stock-based incentives. Don't' act like this is just me talking. If you want me to keep posting even more links, I will, because it's everywhere.

http://www.businessweek.com/stories/...nancial-advice

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/a...articleid=2807

http://blogs.hbr.org/martin/2011/06/...truth-abo.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...510527896.html

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

Options in the USA chart are valued at issue price. Thus it does not reflect true value as the share price can drop and the option has no value or a negative value.

There is no cost to the company for issuing an option until it is exercised. Thus there is no opportunity cost.

You are absolutely wrong on the impact on the decision making by issuing options. In the case I referenced, three years had to pass before the option was exercise able. That creates agape between short and longer term decisions. And they can go ten years so if the company does have a downturn, it may be 10 years before they have value.

I think your position would have merit if you had a specific that you could reference. Just railing against the man is not getting it done.

And just to clarify...

If you earn dollars at $7M, those dollars are valued at $7M.

If you earn stock at $7M, that stock is valued as $7M in equity. It is essentially valued as $7M. If you tank the company and the stock is then valued at $1M, guess what... your equity is now valued at $1M. You just lost $6M.

If you earn a stock option at $7M... that stock is valued at $0. You usually do not lose money on an option. You can only gain money on it. If your stock is below strike price... if this were a stock, you'd lose money every time the stock price dropped. In an option, you don't lose anything even if you send the stock to the cellar. Hence, when executives get huge payouts for big success but are capped in how much they lose if they business tanks... what would you do? Of course you're going to to gamble. Go big or go home.

[HonestChieffan]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

And just to clarify...

If you earn dollars at $7M, those dollars are valued at $7M.

If you earn stock at $7M, that stock is valued as $7M in equity. It is essentially valued as $7M. If you tank the company and the stock is then valued at $1M, guess what... your equity is now valued at $1M. You just lost $6M.

If you earn a stock option at $7M... that stock is valued at $0. You usually do not lose money on an option. You can only gain money on it. If your stock is below strike price... if this were a stock, you'd lose money every time the stock price dropped. In an option, you don't lose anything even if you send the stock to the cellar. Hence, when executives get huge payouts for big success but are capped in how much they lose if they business tanks... what would you do? Of course you're going to to gamble. Go big or go home.

Well no sense in arguing how its valued, its not a matter of your opinion its a simple fact. You either get it or you dont and you chose to not....Rail on my friend, you are a dedicated soldier Ill give you that.

[Stewie]

Look at the bond ratings of the companies that have these "profits." I'm not talking about the "big profit" companies because it doesn't matter, they just borrow more. These "corporations" make profit while being saddled with huge debt. It's the government approved accounting method that says, "See? Everything is golden. Look at the numbers you dumbass!"

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

Well no sense in arguing how its valued, its not a matter of your opinion its a simple fact. You either get it or you dont and you chose to not....Rail on my friend, you are a dedicated soldier Ill give you that.

There is nothing non-factual about what I said. If a stock drops below a strike price, the option is valued at $0 and you lose no money. If it's stock, you lose money every time the stock price drops. The difference in downside risk is tremendously different.

As for vesting... many CEOs can exercise their stock options after 1-3 years. That's not a lot of time and it creates enormous incentive to inflate earnings today then cash out.

[HonestChieffan]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

There is nothing non-factual about what I said. If a stock drops below a strike price, the option is valued at $0 and you lose no money. If it's stock, you lose money every time the stock price drops. The difference in downside risk is tremendously different.

As for vesting... many CEOs can exercise their stock options after 1-3 years. That's not a lot of time and it creates enormous incentive to inflate earnings today then cash out.

Must be new math. Good luck in your endeavors.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

Must be new math. Good luck in your endeavors.

Then tell me what's incorrect. If your stock option is underwater (strike price is higher than actual stock price), you won't exercise the option and your option is basically worth $0. You can't lose money on an option. You can only not make money on it. That's at tremendous difference in terms of downside risk.

Rather than insulting, tell me what is incorrect.

[HonestChieffan]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Then tell me what's incorrect. If your stock option is underwater (strike price is higher than actual stock price), you won't exercise the option and your option is basically worth $0. You can't lose money on an option. You can only not make money on it. That's at tremendous difference in terms of downside risk.

Rather than insulting, tell me what is incorrect.

Thats true up to a point. As you state it it is 100% correct. But if that option represents a substantial part of your compensation and it drops to the negative side, then in essence what you hoped, or had valued it in your planning, then you just took a hell of a hit in income.

Its a matter of perspective at that point.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

Must be new math. Good luck in your endeavors.

Actually he is correct. If you are granted options and the stock never gets to or above the strike price then the value of the options is $0. As long as you didn't pay for the options then you lost no money.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

Thats true up to a point. As you state it it is 100% correct. But if that option represents a substantial part of your compensation and it drops to the negative side, then in essence what you hoped, or had valued it in your planning, then you just took a hell of a hit in income.

Its a matter of perspective at that point.

First lesson of good finance, don't ever plan on getting money that is in the form of options and bonuses. To do so is idiotic. If you took a job based on the hopes that bonuses or stock options would be where you make your money then you got perma-****ed unless you worked out a very beneficial contract for yourself.

I remember interviweing at companies and they would always try to toss in a "bonus" as a perk and I would stop them there. I never wanted to hear about bonuses. If I got one great. Otherwise, just tell me what I am getting in salary and the rest is gravy if it happens.

[HonestChieffan]

Originally Posted by petegz28

First lesson of good finance, don't ever plan on getting money that is in the form of options and bonuses. To do so is idiotic. If you took a job based on the hopes that bonuses or stock options would be where you make your money then you got perma-****ed unless you worked out a very beneficial contract for yourself.

I remember interviweing at companies and they would always try to toss in a "bonus" as a perk and I would stop them there. I never wanted to hear about bonuses. If I got one great. Otherwise, just tell me what I am getting in salary and the rest is gravy if it happens.

Having thrown away an option as well as one Long term Incentive that were both zeroed....I understand.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

This is something I'd like to see your explanations on.

Corporations are recording record profits in 2012. Not good profits, record profits.

And yet our economy struggles at a little under 3% growth and a high unemployment rate.

Why, in your opinion, is the economy so bad yet businesses are doing so great?

Well Obama's policies are corporatist and Keynesian. This benefits those guys. Take a look at it.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by petegz28

First lesson of good finance, don't ever plan on getting money that is in the form of options and bonuses. To do so is idiotic. If you took a job based on the hopes that bonuses or stock options would be where you make your money then you got perma-****ed unless you worked out a very beneficial contract for yourself.

I remember interviweing at companies and they would always try to toss in a "bonus" as a perk and I would stop them there. I never wanted to hear about bonuses. If I got one great. Otherwise, just tell me what I am getting in salary and the rest is gravy if it happens.

I have a friend who is a millionaire today by getting hired at start-ups offering stock options.
He did it three times.