The Stockholders Strike Back!

At Citigroup’s annual meeting, owners of the stock voted 55 to 45 against a $50 million executive pay package, including $15 million for CEO Vikram Pandit.

This is all thanks to the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul law.

Buried in its 2,300 pages is a requirement for public companies to hold “say on pay” votes for executive compensation.

Now, the vote is non-binding, but the chairman of Citigroup Dick Parsons said he took it seriously, and promised the board would consider it carefully.

Shareholders have every right to be upset with Vikram.

Over the last decade, Citigroup has had the worst stock price performance of the big banks, but consistently had some of the highest executive compensation.

 Citi shares up slightly today, but they’re down more than 80% since the financial crisis hit.

They’re down 93% from 2006.

Last year, Pandit got a $1.7 million salary, plus a $5.3 million cash bonus, and he got a $40 million retention package that pays out through 2015.

Getting a bonus should be a piece of cake for these execs, too, since the standard for the payout is an earnings track record half of what it was in 2009 and 2010 when the economy was in the tank.

Whoa! Don’t get too ambitious!

Look, to be fair to Pandit, for 2009 and 2010, he accepted just a buck in salary.

 But to be fair to shareholders, Citi’s quarterly dividend is one penny.

 At the start of this week, Citigroup announced its first-quarter profit had fallen two percent from a year earlier on a paltry one percent rise in revenue.

 The Federal Reserve turned the company down on its request for a share buyback or dividend after Citi flunked the central bank’s stress test in March. And don’t forget the bank was one of many bailed out during the financial crisis.

Some people bridle at anyone earning millions of dollars a year, but not me.

If you can grow sales, boost the bottom line, raise the share price, then by all means you’ve earned a fat paycheck.

But what we can’t do is reward mediocrity and failure.

There’s a lot not to like about Dodd-Frank – about 2,299 pages’ worth if you ask me – but shareholder “say on pay”? That’s OK with me.

Last year shareholders voted down just two percent of executive pay plans. Maybe this is the start of a new trend.

Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/willis-report/blog/2012/04/18/shareholders-strike-back?link=mktw#ixzz1sXtwnCTx

Things are Getting Better?

The unemployment rate decreased .1% last month. That sounds good but the cause was more people giving up on searching for a job.  There weren’t even enough jobs created last month to keep up with increased population. 

Today’s Bureau of Labor Statistics report included the following statement. “The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over)was essentially unchanged at 5.3 million in March. These individuals accounted for 42.5 percent of the unemployed. Since April 2010, the number of long-term unemployed has fallen by 1.4 million.”

There is the problem that neither President Obama nor Mitt Romney has addressed. American industry doesn’t need most of those long term unemployed. The reason is that technology and the export of American jobs has reduced the numbers of people required in the United States.

The president’s job plan does include the following proposals
– A $4,000 tax credit to employers for hiring long-term unemployed workers.
– Prohibiting employers from discriminating against unemployed workers when hiring.
Nice gestures that do not answer the question of who will hire these un-needed people?

I have found nothing in Mitt Romney’s proposals that even suggest any solutions. His focus is on “free market.” My question is, where were the free markets under George W. Bush when the economy was in free fall?

My solution is higher tariffs on all imported products. Neither Obama nor Romney agree with that solution.  They don’t have a solution!

The Issue is Long Term Unemployment

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics report dated today, March, 9, 2012.
“The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) was little changed at 5.4 million in February. These individuals accounted for 42.6 percent of the unemployed.”

“The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons(sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was essentially unchanged at 8.1 million in February. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.”

Perhaps this answers the question, why is one in seven Americans receiving aid to buy food?

Millions of people lost jobs in the last four years, and being plunged into poverty made them eligible for food assistance. “That’s the way this program is designed,” said Kevin Concannon, the head of the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service. Some 15 percent of the population-the highest rate since 1993-now lives at or below the poverty level, which is defined as $19,090 per year for a family of three. The average food stamp household of 2.2 people receives $287 in monthly food-assistance benefits, or about $72 a week. That’s not a lot to feed two people, but food stamp spending adds up: It has quadrupled in the course of the last 10 years, to a total this year of $80.4 billion. Critics blame that cost explosion on relaxed eligibility standards that began under the Bush administration, and on a boost in monthly benefits put through by Obama as part of the 2009 stimulus package. Obama increased the amount of time people could stay on food stamps, and added about $80 to the monthly benefits of a family of four. “No program in our government has surged out of control more dramatically than food stamps,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama.

The issue is the millions who are unemployed with no job opportunities on the horizon. Our nation’s leaders in both political parties have not offered any solutions. 

HAVE THEY?

Three Economic Misconceptions That Need to Die

Thought this article very interesting.  Especially with information cited coming from notable sources.  This among so many other issues can only leave us wondering how much misinformation we are fed . . . or simply on the face of it, how much we choose to believe.

Love the quote from Evan Thomas who said. . . “You are entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.”  Hmmmm
Three Economic Misconceptions That Need to Die
By Morgan Housel, Columnist at The Motley Fool, USC graduate in Economics

 

At a conference in Philadelphia last October, a Wharton professor noted that one of the country’s biggest economic problems is a tsunami of misinformation. You can’t have a rational debate when facts are so easily supplanted by overreaching statements, broad generalizations, and misconceptions. And if you can’t have a rational debate, how does anything important get done? As author William Feather once advised, “Beware of the person who can’t be bothered by details.” There seems to be no shortage of those people lately.

Here are three misconceptions that need to be put to rest.

Misconception No. 1: Most of what Americans spend their money on is made in China.

Fact: Just 2.7% of personal consumption expenditures go to Chinese-made goods and services. 88.5% of U.S. consumer spending is on American-made goods and services. I used that statistic in a recent article, and the response from readers was overwhelming: Hogwash. People just didn’t believe it.

 

The figure comes from a Federal Reserve report. You can read it here.

A common rebuttal I got was, “How can it only be 2.7% when almost everything in Walmart (WMT) is made in China?” Because Walmart’s $260 billion in U.S. revenue isn’t exactly reflective of America’s $14.5 trillion economy. Walmart might sell a broad range of knickknacks, many of which are made in China, but the vast majority of what Americans spend their money on is not knickknacks.

 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics closely tracks how an average American spends their money in an annual report called the Consumer Expenditure Survey. In 2010, the average American spent 34% of their income on housing, 13% on food, 11% on insurance and pensions, 7% on health care, and 2% on education. Those categories alone make up nearly 70% of total spending, and are comprised almost entirely of American-made goods and services (only 7% of food is imported, according to the USDA).
Even when looking at physical goods alone, Chinese imports still account for just a small fraction of U.S. spending. Just 6.4% of nondurable goods — things like food, clothing and toys — purchased in the U.S. are made in China; 76.2% are made in America. For durable goods — things like cars and furniture — 12% are made in China; 66.6% are made in America.

Another way to grasp the value of Chinese-made goods is to look at imports. The U.S. imported $399 billion worth of goods from China last year, which is 2.7% of our $14.5 trillion economy. Is that a lot? Yes. Is it most of what we spend our money on? Not by a long shot.

 

Part of the misconception is likely driven by the notion that America’s manufacturing base has been in steep decline. The truth, surprising to many, is that real manufacturing output today is near an all-time high. What’s dropped precipitously in recent decades is manufacturing employment. Technology and automation has allowed American manufacturers to build more stuff with far fewer workers than in the past. One good example: In 1950, a U.S. Steel (X) plant in Gary, Ind., produced 6 million tons of steel with 30,000 workers. Today, it produces 7.5 million tons with 5,000 workers. Output has gone up; employment has dropped like a rock.

 

Misconception No. 2:We owe most of our debt to China.

Fact: China owns 7.6% of U.S. government debt outstanding.

As of November, China owned $1.13 trillion of Treasuries. Government debt stood at $14.9 trillion that month. That’s 7.6%.

Who owns the rest? The largest holder of U.S. debt is the federal government itself. Various government trust funds like the Social Security trust fund own about $4.4 trillion worth of Treasury securities. The Federal Reserve owns another $1.6 trillion.

Both are unique owners: Interest paid on debt held by federal trust funds is used to cover a portion of federal spending, and the vast majority of interest earned by the Federal Reserve is remitted back to the U.S. Treasury.

The rest of our debt is owned by state and local governments ($700 billion), private domestic investors ($3.1 trillion), and other non-Chinese foreign investors ($3.5 trillion).

Does China own a lot of our debt? Yes, but it’s a qualified yes. Of all Treasury debt held by foreigners, China is indeed the largest owner ($1.13 trillion), followed by Japan $1 trillion) and the U.K. ($429 billion).

Right there, you can see that Japan and the U.K. combined own more U.S. debt than China. Now, how many times have you heard someone say that we borrow an inordinate amount of money from Japan and the U.K.? I never have. But how often do you hear some version of the “China is our banker” line? Too often, I’d say.

Misconception No. 3:We get most of our oil from the Middle East. Fact: Just 9.8% of oil consumed in the U.S. comes from the Middle East.

According the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the U.S. consumes 19.2 million barrels of petroleum products per day. Of that amount, a net 49% is produced domestically. The rest is imported.

Where is it imported from? Only a small fraction comes from the Middle East, and that fraction has been declining in recent years. Last year, imports from the Persian Gulf region — which includes Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates — made up 9.8% of total petroleum supplied to the U.S. In 2001, that number was 14.1%.

The U.S. imports more than twice as much petroleum from Canada and Mexico than it does from the Middle East. Add in the share produced domestically, and the majority of petroleum consumed in the U.S. comes from North America.

This isn’t to belittle our energy situation. The nation still relies on imports for about half of its oil. That’s bad. But should the Middle East get the attention it does when we talk about oil reliance? In terms of security and geopolitical stability, perhaps. In terms of volume, probably not.