<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Is all investment about the future?	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://thinking4innovators.com/is-all-investment-about-the-future/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://thinking4innovators.com/is-all-investment-about-the-future/</link>
	<description>Bringing my thinking and solutions to your business problems</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2015 14:20:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: paul4innovating		</title>
		<link>https://thinking4innovators.com/is-all-investment-about-the-future/#comment-1450</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[paul4innovating]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2015 14:20:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://paul4innovating.com/?p=9553#comment-1450</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I would like to take Apple out of this, we could get into tax lost in other countries where the revenue was earned but loop holes allowed for &#039;efficient&#039; tax management for Apple. No I don&#039;t want to go there. While Apple customers are prepared to pay the price and they &#039;enjoy&#039; the margin- fine. It has been distorting technology stocks for some time, hence why others have been forced to buyback to run in the pack. Not sure, you would know better.
Does buybacks then &quot;create a customer&quot; as you are suggesting? I don&#039;t think so.
Distributing back to shareholders I don&#039;t disagree with. All I am arguing here is that financial management is dominating to the detriment of innovation, investment in renewing assets and constantly pushing down on existing resources to make them &#039;sweat&#039; even more.
Is it generating long term wealth or pampering even more to the short-term craving?
We continue to face volatile, economic cycles that are making many companies fiscally conservative. Are CEO&#039;s or their CFO&#039;s pursuing opportunities as much as they should? It is a combined position of their ability to capture growth, as well as show their financial strength and it is this balance that goes more out of kilter. We are in this cycle of cash accumulation as risk fundamentals are seen as not healthy for the better pursuit of going for growth or approving more innovation projects as these lack the same security of ROI.
I just would like a more bullish attitude towards growth not propping up what you have through consistent buybacks. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would like to take Apple out of this, we could get into tax lost in other countries where the revenue was earned but loop holes allowed for &#8216;efficient&#8217; tax management for Apple. No I don&#8217;t want to go there. While Apple customers are prepared to pay the price and they &#8216;enjoy&#8217; the margin- fine. It has been distorting technology stocks for some time, hence why others have been forced to buyback to run in the pack. Not sure, you would know better.<br />
Does buybacks then &#8220;create a customer&#8221; as you are suggesting? I don&#8217;t think so.<br />
Distributing back to shareholders I don&#8217;t disagree with. All I am arguing here is that financial management is dominating to the detriment of innovation, investment in renewing assets and constantly pushing down on existing resources to make them &#8216;sweat&#8217; even more.<br />
Is it generating long term wealth or pampering even more to the short-term craving?<br />
We continue to face volatile, economic cycles that are making many companies fiscally conservative. Are CEO&#8217;s or their CFO&#8217;s pursuing opportunities as much as they should? It is a combined position of their ability to capture growth, as well as show their financial strength and it is this balance that goes more out of kilter. We are in this cycle of cash accumulation as risk fundamentals are seen as not healthy for the better pursuit of going for growth or approving more innovation projects as these lack the same security of ROI.<br />
I just would like a more bullish attitude towards growth not propping up what you have through consistent buybacks. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: gsatell		</title>
		<link>https://thinking4innovators.com/is-all-investment-about-the-future/#comment-1449</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[gsatell]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2015 13:56:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://paul4innovating.com/?p=9553#comment-1449</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[To be honest, I think this is a case of affirming the consequent.  The behavior you speak of is a perfectly good explanation for buybacks, but so are other things.
The case of Apple is extreme, but instructive.  Apple is throwing off roughly $50 billion in cash, more than it could ever invest in research (and that&#039;s after it increased its famously stingy research budget).  It has to do something with the money and dividends are very inefficient tax-wise.  So they do buybacks.
That&#039;s not a function of the bull market, it is an efficient allocation of capital.  (Apple&#039;s PE is significantly lower than than the S&#038;P, so any acquisitions would be more expensive than investing in its own stock).  So, that&#039;s something you like to see.
Now, where does that money go?  It goes back to investors who can spend it (which would create jobs) or invest it elsewhere.  For the most part, they seem to be investing it, which is why the market for startup investments is so frothy.
So I think there&#039;s always a problem when you try to extrapolate a micro-phenomenon (like buybacks) to a macro trend.  The purpose of a business is not to innovate or to create jobs, but as Peter Drucker put it, to create a customer.
It would be difficult to argue that there aren&#039;t enough new products or even product categories, so It&#039;s hard to see how, with R&#038;D at the corporate level healthy (although not at the public level), why  managers should hold on to capital when  there is likely a better use for it.
That&#039;s not to say that there aren&#039;t problems.  There&#039;s a lot of evidence that technology, as well as policy, is contributing to income inequality, which is one reason consumer spending isn&#039;t reviving as fast as it should, but that&#039;s another story...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To be honest, I think this is a case of affirming the consequent.  The behavior you speak of is a perfectly good explanation for buybacks, but so are other things.<br />
The case of Apple is extreme, but instructive.  Apple is throwing off roughly $50 billion in cash, more than it could ever invest in research (and that&#8217;s after it increased its famously stingy research budget).  It has to do something with the money and dividends are very inefficient tax-wise.  So they do buybacks.<br />
That&#8217;s not a function of the bull market, it is an efficient allocation of capital.  (Apple&#8217;s PE is significantly lower than than the S&amp;P, so any acquisitions would be more expensive than investing in its own stock).  So, that&#8217;s something you like to see.<br />
Now, where does that money go?  It goes back to investors who can spend it (which would create jobs) or invest it elsewhere.  For the most part, they seem to be investing it, which is why the market for startup investments is so frothy.<br />
So I think there&#8217;s always a problem when you try to extrapolate a micro-phenomenon (like buybacks) to a macro trend.  The purpose of a business is not to innovate or to create jobs, but as Peter Drucker put it, to create a customer.<br />
It would be difficult to argue that there aren&#8217;t enough new products or even product categories, so It&#8217;s hard to see how, with R&amp;D at the corporate level healthy (although not at the public level), why  managers should hold on to capital when  there is likely a better use for it.<br />
That&#8217;s not to say that there aren&#8217;t problems.  There&#8217;s a lot of evidence that technology, as well as policy, is contributing to income inequality, which is one reason consumer spending isn&#8217;t reviving as fast as it should, but that&#8217;s another story&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: paul4innovating		</title>
		<link>https://thinking4innovators.com/is-all-investment-about-the-future/#comment-1448</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[paul4innovating]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2015 13:24:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://paul4innovating.com/?p=9553#comment-1448</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://thinking4innovators.com/is-all-investment-about-the-future/#comment-1447&quot;&gt;gsatell&lt;/a&gt;.

Hi Greg, Thanks for the reply. You are partly right. I think organizations are struggling for real growth, they are leaner than for a long time, have not invested in assets as intensively as the past and sit on a lot of cash. As interest is low to non-existent where do you put the money- in buybacks and your stock. It keeps it on a high, it takes out surplus stock, some feel were diluting the share price &#039;reasonable&#039; value. No argument that R&#038;D stays constant or even gone up, depending on industry but it is not really the environment &#039;chasing for growth&#039;, it is one where companies feel are still too uncertain, a little volatile and risky. Yet risk goes hand in hand with innovation and growing markets, getting into new sectors but the safe to do action is to distribute that spare cash back into buying your stock. It raises the question on how do you judge innovation, and the type of approach you make towards it.
If the bull market does finally run out of steam, stocks will be driven by more than cash alone, they will be driven by company prospects and that comes from making the right investments, in innovating what you have and what you see as risks worth taking to keep attracting investment. M&#038;A&#039;s will come back, as all the cash can help in this area but the premium of return from many of these M &#038; A&#039;s has been questionable.
Each way there is a need for greater, bolder innovation. Most are ticking over waiting for the &#039;fundamentals&#039; to change and put your spare cash in where you feel it is the safest, back in your hands and not in the banks. Things will change. As for the tax advantage then this becomes a political one to handle equally.
We need greater growth worldwide, more jobs that are above minimum conditions, we need different wealth generating concepts. Buybacks give shorter-term gain at present and certainly valuable addition to managements own share holding. We become more short-term in these actions and that has a finite time before it needs changing to get all aspects of the economy firing, not just selected parts.
It is interesting that the majority of the buybacks have been related to two industry sectors- pharmaceuticals were they need to hind behind there lack of pipeline and technology related with Apple, Cisco, Intel, Microsft all pushing prices up with substantial buybacks as the cash is piling in. Maybe this distorts or is enhancing, and the real dynamics of technology might be less appealing and other options might come back into fashion, again it can create a distorted economy.
Buybacks are made for many reasons but they are not the friend of investment in assets or people that can build &#039;greater&#039; innovation and thats the point.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://thinking4innovators.com/is-all-investment-about-the-future/#comment-1447">gsatell</a>.</p>
<p>Hi Greg, Thanks for the reply. You are partly right. I think organizations are struggling for real growth, they are leaner than for a long time, have not invested in assets as intensively as the past and sit on a lot of cash. As interest is low to non-existent where do you put the money- in buybacks and your stock. It keeps it on a high, it takes out surplus stock, some feel were diluting the share price &#8216;reasonable&#8217; value. No argument that R&amp;D stays constant or even gone up, depending on industry but it is not really the environment &#8216;chasing for growth&#8217;, it is one where companies feel are still too uncertain, a little volatile and risky. Yet risk goes hand in hand with innovation and growing markets, getting into new sectors but the safe to do action is to distribute that spare cash back into buying your stock. It raises the question on how do you judge innovation, and the type of approach you make towards it.<br />
If the bull market does finally run out of steam, stocks will be driven by more than cash alone, they will be driven by company prospects and that comes from making the right investments, in innovating what you have and what you see as risks worth taking to keep attracting investment. M&amp;A&#8217;s will come back, as all the cash can help in this area but the premium of return from many of these M &amp; A&#8217;s has been questionable.<br />
Each way there is a need for greater, bolder innovation. Most are ticking over waiting for the &#8216;fundamentals&#8217; to change and put your spare cash in where you feel it is the safest, back in your hands and not in the banks. Things will change. As for the tax advantage then this becomes a political one to handle equally.<br />
We need greater growth worldwide, more jobs that are above minimum conditions, we need different wealth generating concepts. Buybacks give shorter-term gain at present and certainly valuable addition to managements own share holding. We become more short-term in these actions and that has a finite time before it needs changing to get all aspects of the economy firing, not just selected parts.<br />
It is interesting that the majority of the buybacks have been related to two industry sectors- pharmaceuticals were they need to hind behind there lack of pipeline and technology related with Apple, Cisco, Intel, Microsft all pushing prices up with substantial buybacks as the cash is piling in. Maybe this distorts or is enhancing, and the real dynamics of technology might be less appealing and other options might come back into fashion, again it can create a distorted economy.<br />
Buybacks are made for many reasons but they are not the friend of investment in assets or people that can build &#8216;greater&#8217; innovation and thats the point.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: gsatell		</title>
		<link>https://thinking4innovators.com/is-all-investment-about-the-future/#comment-1447</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[gsatell]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2015 11:46:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://paul4innovating.com/?p=9553#comment-1447</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Hi Paul,
I&#039;ve been hearing this line about stock buybacks a lot and I don&#039;t buy it.  Companies in the US do stock buybacks because of the tax advantages over dividends.  They have been doing more stock buybacks lately because they are sitting on a mountain of cash.  R&#038;D isn&#039;t falling, it&#039;s growing (except for basic research, which is a problem, but its mostly about public sector politics not private sector investment).
Here&#039;s an article showing that R&#038;D growth is outpacing GDP growth in the US: http://news.sciencemag.org/funding/2014/01/business-gains-drive-higher-rd-spending-u.s.
And here&#039;s the World Bank Data: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GB.XPD.RSDV.GD.ZS]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Paul,<br />
I&#8217;ve been hearing this line about stock buybacks a lot and I don&#8217;t buy it.  Companies in the US do stock buybacks because of the tax advantages over dividends.  They have been doing more stock buybacks lately because they are sitting on a mountain of cash.  R&amp;D isn&#8217;t falling, it&#8217;s growing (except for basic research, which is a problem, but its mostly about public sector politics not private sector investment).<br />
Here&#8217;s an article showing that R&amp;D growth is outpacing GDP growth in the US: <a href="http://news.sciencemag.org/funding/2014/01/business-gains-drive-higher-rd-spending-u.s" rel="nofollow ugc">http://news.sciencemag.org/funding/2014/01/business-gains-drive-higher-rd-spending-u.s</a>.<br />
And here&#8217;s the World Bank Data: <a href="http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GB.XPD.RSDV.GD.ZS" rel="nofollow ugc">http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GB.XPD.RSDV.GD.ZS</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
