Curious whether whether you think this makes sense.
And when I hear something like this I I think about what problem are we trying to solve here is the problem.
Trying to raise revenue? I suppose that's that's a problem.
Are we trying to signal certain political priorities?
Maybe we're doing that? But I don't see the actual economic problem that this is solving.
I think there's very little evidence that buybacks are somehow negatively impacting corporate decision making that it's making them more short term oriented,
and that list of companies that you mentioned earlier.
Pretty successful companies on that list,
so I tend to think this is more about making the numbers work in this budget and signaling priorities rather than dressing an actual economic problem afflicting
America. I want to I want to get to Donna just a second,
but Jim there is, I think,
irrefutable evidence that over the last 10 years when you do look at executives selling their shares that the amount,
both in terms of volume and the timing and everything else is materially higher.
I mean on the order of five times higher,
if not more than that.
In the context of buybacks relative to companies that are not pursuing buybacks by the way,
it makes sense you would.
You would think that people would sell into into a buyback situation,
in part because it is propping and pushing the stock higher.
Well, I guess two things one.
Then that's like. So that's a data point,
right? And then you need to stick.
They need to connect that to poor corporate performance that therefore there are all these investments.
They're not making Jim. Game story
though. Same story if you look at the studies you will actually see that companies that pursued buybacks grow more slowly,
oddly enough. And maybe it's not odd.
Then they did in the three years prior.
To finish my second point,
then you have to say that they are therefore passing up lots of good investments,
and I thought like the broad center left macroeconomic theory here was that we're in a period of secular stagnation where there aren't good investments.
So then what are you asking them to do?
Where are the good investments that you want them to invest it?
You can't have it sort of both ways.
Donna, what do you think?
Well,
first of all, thank you,
Andrew. I think you're making my point.
Actually, that the fact is that this phenomenon of corporate buybacks is actually increasing overtime.
You made the point earlier a trillion dollars.
The estimates are just this year,
and so the goal here is to try to encourage good behavior and discourage bad behavior.
That is behavior are we are we.
Are we trying to encourage?
Is this about executive to put the money back into their companies to invest in?
Need to invest in their workforce,
which in turn invests in the economy
but Donna. Here's here's the question I mean.
And maybe we just need to separate the issues.
Are we trying to raise tax dollars?
Which by the way, might happen because you would discourage buybacks.
You might encourage dividends. They get taxed at a different rate.
Obviously, that that might be what we're trying to do here.
Are we trying to change behaviors?
Should those things be separated?
And to Jim's point, if you want capital to move efficiently to the best places for return and investment.
What do you do in an environment where clearly companies at least at the moment,
don't think that they know of a place to put their money in a better place to put their money than in their own companies?
Right, well, so it's possible that with one policy you can do multiple things,
and so I think with.
With this policy, the idea is that if if these are,
you know top ten companies that you listed on your screen that are good companies invest in your workforce.
Invest in and expanding that that business and so I think that you know you can vote and also encouraging the kind of behavior that says that we're not going
to just keep repurchasing. Start buying back stock instead of putting it into the company and into the work.