Skip to main content

Repatriating overseas profits -- panacea or problem?

I typically don't dwell too much on the Opinion section of the Wall Street Journal. Since Karl Rove became a frequent contributor, this is a page that I generally can't bypass quickly enough.

In Wednesday's paper, however, in the dreaded Karl Rove spot on the page, was a piece by John Chambers and Safra Catz. As a follower of tech stocks, I immediately recognized the names of, respectively, the chairman and CEO of Cisco Systems and the president of Oracle. These are business people with serious credibility who are not usually associated with any extreme political positions. I stopped to read further.

Their article, "The Overseas Profits Elephant in the Room" revisits some territory that has been covered by a number of bloggers recently. Basically, they contend that U.S. companies have a trillion dollars stashed overseas in their foreign operations but U.S. tax policy makes it prohibitively expensive to bring that money back to the U.S. where it could be used productively and, in the process, give the overall economy a boost.

The Problem Statement --

Here are some of the points the authors make when describing the negative aspects of the situation:

The penalty: for U.S. companies, repatriated foreign profits are subject to a 35% tax.  Other countries tax rates are more on the order of 0% to 2%. American companies, therefore, are unfairly penalized for being successful in their overseas operations.

U.S. companies are not at fault: the authors of the article refute commentators who say that companies have billions of dollars on their balance sheets but, because the companies won't spend the money the economy remains stalled. The authors contend the cash is indeed on the books but is out of reach due to the prohibitive tax rate.

Interest rates are low: with interest rates on corporate bonds so low, it is much more sensible for U.S. multi-nationals to borrow at 4% rather than repatriate profits and pay 35% in taxes.

The Solution??

Reduce the tax rate: the authors suggest that the tax rate be reduced to maybe 5%. This allows the government to collect a bit of revenue while allowing companies to bring back their overseas profits to use here in the U.S.

Put the cash to good use: the authors contend that the money could be used for "creating jobs, investing in research, building plants, purchasing equipment and other uses." The money could also be used for mergers and acquisitions, paying dividends or doing stock buy-backs: all good things for markets and investors.

Put the tax revenues to good use: the government could take the 5%, which would amount to roughly $50 billion, and use it to reward employers who hire new graduates or anyone who was formerly unemployed. The authors say more than 2 million jobs could be created.

Is it as easy as that??

The authors describe a win-win situation where everybody benefits. But is life ever that easy?

The idea has a whiff of the old "trickle down" theory. If companies can have a trillion dollars, they'll get the economy going and we'll all prosper. I was a very young man the last time "trickle down" was attempted and from my point of view, "trickle" was indeed the right term as most of us in Buffalo, NY in those years saw precious little of any of the supposed prosperity that resulted.

The Obama administration has declared that waving the taxes on overseas profits is tantamount to rewarding companies that move jobs out of the United States. This is too simplistic. U.S. multinational corporations need to be in the countries where they operate in order to be close to their customers and markets. That will never change, no matter how easy we make it to repatriate profits. It's just plain common sense.

But what about those jobs that were moved offshore because overseas workers are cheaper? Will repatriating profits do anything to bring back those jobs? Hardly. Companies are always going to say that they have to be "competitive" in a global economy, that's why they can't hire U.S. workers. Or that U.S. workers just don't have the skills for the jobs that are available (and are apparently untrainable), hence, the need to allow more foreign workers into the country or move the work overseas. And then there are the countries that provide significant incentives to entice U.S. companies to establish factories and research facilities in their countries. How will repatriated profits address that issue?

The bottom line --

Net-net, the authors are most likely correct that the economy would benefit if a trillion dollars was actually repatriated with minimal tax impact; however, it is doubtful that the full trillion dollars would actually come back to the U.S. and it is doubtful that the impact on jobs would be quite as positive as the authors contend.

So this becomes an issue of trying to decide just what it's worth to improve the economy marginally. Give the companies their profits with minimal taxes and allow them to say "trust us" about investing it in the U.S.? We trusted the banks and look how well that worked out for us.

And then you have to wonder what new unintended consequences will come to pass as a result of a tax break on foreign profits. Why wouldn't it be an incentive to do even more business overseas with even more foreign workers? Or just acquire more foreign companies?

As you can see, this is not as clear cut an issue as the authors and many financial bloggers imply. Is the tax too high? Most likely. Will decreasing it juice the economy? Most likely, in the short term. Will it have a lasting positive effect? Who can say?


Popular posts from this blog

Brazil - in a bubble or on a roll?

A couple of years ago, no one recognized the real estate bubble even though it was under everyone's nose. Now, analysts and bloggers are seeing bubbles everywhere they look. One of them, they say is in Brazil whose Bovespa stock market index has doubled in the last 12 months. Does the bubble accusation hold water? I don't think so and here are 7 reasons why Brazil is by no means a bubble economy: Exports have held up over the past year thanks to demand from China for Brazil's soya exports and iron ore. This was helped by the the Brazilian government's drive to improve trade links with Asia and Africa. Export diversification, spurred by a more active trade policy and increased focus on "south-south" trade under current president Lula, helped mitigate the decline in demand from OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries A "sensible" economic framework has been in place since the 1990's. This has included inflation

Thursday Bounce: Trend Busters, Swing Signals and Trend Leaders for July 9, 2009

This is a quick post to announce that we have published Thursday's Trend Leaders, Swing Signals and Trend Busters at Alert HQ . All are based on daily data. Today we have the following: 72 Swing Signals -- A couple of days ago we had 35 signals, today we have twice as many. Happily, we now have 65 BUY signals, a mere 4 SELL Signals plus 3 Strong BUYs. Whoo-hoo! 56 Trend Leaders , all in strong up-trends according to Aroon, MACD and DMI. There are 18 new stocks that made today's list and 60 that fell off Tuesday's list. 48 Trend Busters of which 5 are BUY signals and 43 are SELL signals The view from Alert HQ -- Talk about mixed signals. If you look at our Swing Signals list you would think the market was in the middle of a big bounce. BUY signals are swamping the SELL signals and we even have a few Strong BUYs. Yes, there's a good sprinkling of tech stocks and tech ETFs but the distribution is pretty broad-based with a good number of different sectors represented, eve

Unlock Stock Market Profits - Key #1

This is the first in an ongoing series of articles where I discuss what I feel are keys to successful investing. It is based on a post that provides a summary of the ten keys that individual investors should use to identify profitable stock trades. ( Click here to read the original post ) There are two basic steps to investing. First, you need to find stocks that seem to have some potential. Then you have to determine whether these stocks are actually good investments. There are many stocks that at first glance look interesting, but further research reveals that there are too many negatives to warrant taking a position. This first post in the series starts at the beginning: getting good investment ideas. Key #1: If something special is happening to a stock, it will be reflected in some kind of unusual activity in the markets. As individual investors, we will never be the first to know; however, unusual activity can be an early sign that allows us to follow the Wall Street professional