Skip to main content

William Lazonick and Stock Buybacks

A recent post at NEP-HIS Blog reviews William Lazonick's working paper on the Financialization of the U.S. Corporation. Lazonick is concerned with why, following the disappearance of large numbers of middle-class jobs in the U.S. during the past three decades, U.S. corporations have not invested in new technology and created high-value jobs to replace those lost to rationalisation and globalisation. His answer is the financialization of the U.S. corporation, with stock buybacks being the most obvious manifestation of this process. According to Lazonick, corporations use stock repurchases to manipulate their share prices, with the result that corporate executives holding stock options are enriched. He ultimately blames this on the erroneous 'ideology' that corporations should be run in such a way so as to maximise shareholder value.

I think that Lazonick is correct to highlight the problems with stock buybacks. As a student of financial history who has worked on dividend policy (click here), I know that stock buybacks were little used prior to the 1970s. I also know that they were illegal for a long period of time precisely because they could be used to manipulate stock prices.
 
However, I have doubts about two other aspects of his argument. First, he assumes that new technology would have appeared if only U.S. corporations had invested more of their profits in innovation. This is a big assumption to make (click here). Second, the problem is not the ideology of maximising shareholder value, rather shareholders have been expropriated by CEOs and directors. If U.S. corporations had been maximising shareholder, they would not have engaged in extensive buybacks which benefit CEOs at the expense of shareholders.   

Popular posts from this blog

Bitcoin Bubble?

According to Robert Shiller , speaking at Davos, Bitcoin is a perfect example of a bubble - story here . Shiller sees Bitcoin as a backwards step in the evolution of money.   George Selgin , a free banker, takes an opposing view - click here .  Although he doesn't believe that Bitcoin is money, he sees its development as a fascinating turn in the evolution of money. In particular, he lauds the fact that Bitcoin production is constrained and cannot be infinite. There is a short video below where Bitcoin explain how it works.

How Valuable Are Connections?

Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, Amir Kermani, James Kwak and Todd Mitton have written a paper on whether firms connected to Timothy Geithner benefited from these connections. They do so by looking at how stocks of these firms reacted to the announcement that he was a nominee for Treasury Secretary in November 2008. They find that there were large abnormal returns for connected firms. Below is the paper's abstract and the full paper is available here . The announcement of Timothy Geithner as nominee for Treasury Secretary in November 2008 produced a cumulative abnormal return for financial firms with which he had a connection. This return was about 6% after the first full day of trading and about 12% after ten trading days. There were subsequently abnormal negative returns for connected firms when news broke that Geithner's confirmation might be derailed by tax issues. Excess returns for connected firms may reflect the perceived impact of relying on the advice of a small ne

Boom and Bust: A Global History of Financial Bubbles

Boom and Bust: A Global History of Financial Bubbles, co-authored with my colleague Will Quinn , is forthcoming in August. It is published by Cambridge University Press and is available for pre-order at Amazon , Barnes and Noble , Waterstones and Cambridge University Press .