> equity shares — 90% of which are owned by the top-10% of wealthholders
Since this is such a mind-boggling and important fact I would like you to clarify. Is what the population holds – indirectly – through pensions funds/401(k)s included in this graph?
If not, what is your guess (or knowledge) how much the graph has to be adjusted – being aware that also concerning pension funds/401(k)s we have something not far off of the same distribution.
also this can’t get brought enough times to our attention:
> when government delivers benefits to corporations (like subsidies or tax cuts), it’s ultimately delivering assets onto (top-10%) households’ balance sheets
> buybacks are a massive tax-avoidance scheme. With dividends, all shareholders get income that they have to pay taxes on in full at the dividend/cap-gains rate (they’re currently the same). With a buyback, only the selling shareholders get cash, and they’re only taxed on the difference between their selling price and what they originally paid for the shares — their capital gains.
Isn't it interesting that the possibility of «buybacks» is not simply the natural state since humans exist. Instead a change of the code of law was necessary – meaning: it got pushed through. By whom? The top-10% – more precisely: by a little bit of their money that greased many hands/wheels.
Robert Reich writes: «Before Ronald Reagan’s SEC allowed them in 1982, buybacks were treated as illegal stock manipulations in violation of the 1933 and 1934 Securities and Exchange Acts.»
>Is what the population holds – indirectly – through pensions funds/401(k)s included in this graph?
Yes. "Corporate equities and mutual funds" there (includes ETFs which aren't *technically* mutual funds...) includes households' holdings in their IRA, 401K "retirement" accounts, and etc.
Equities/funds "held" by households via their "defined contribution" pension plans, however, are tallied in the Pension Entitlements category — the third largest HH asset category after equities and real estate. (Top-10% wealtholders "only" own 57% of those DC pension entitlements.)
> concerning pension funds/401(k)s we have something not far off of the same distribution
Very interesting. I'd be curious to see the magnitude (and distribution) of retirement accounts. I've never dug up that info.
> buybacks were treated as illegal stock manipulations
Exactly right, grrrrr. They didn't actually repeal the S & Ex Act provisions, instead they put out Rule 10B-18, which provides a "safe harbor" for buybacks large enough to fit several of the world's navies in. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rule10b18.asp
I see SEC is currently floating some new rules that at first glance seems to make the whole safe-harbor bizness even more ornate and impenetrable than it is now...
What’s your opinion on this: «The University of Michigan Survey of Consumer Sentiment shows that a record-high 30% of the population has stocks worth more than $500,000, and 37% own a home worth more than $500,000, ...»
I don't know this survey well (in particular how it extracts "consumers" wealth, when there are multiple consumers in a wealtholding household/family/tax unit), but it seems to me the top chart must actually be showing:
Percent of consumers [¡who own any stocks!] that hold less than $10K.
The *total*-wealth *upper* limit for the DFAs' bottom-50% *households* is...$242,000.
Asset swaps indeed, not directly impacting on productivity. This focus on short term financial gains come at the expense of long term productivity enhancing activities. Underinvesting in the future have broader economic repercussions?
> equity shares — 90% of which are owned by the top-10% of wealthholders
Since this is such a mind-boggling and important fact I would like you to clarify. Is what the population holds – indirectly – through pensions funds/401(k)s included in this graph?
If not, what is your guess (or knowledge) how much the graph has to be adjusted – being aware that also concerning pension funds/401(k)s we have something not far off of the same distribution.
also this can’t get brought enough times to our attention:
> when government delivers benefits to corporations (like subsidies or tax cuts), it’s ultimately delivering assets onto (top-10%) households’ balance sheets
> buybacks are a massive tax-avoidance scheme. With dividends, all shareholders get income that they have to pay taxes on in full at the dividend/cap-gains rate (they’re currently the same). With a buyback, only the selling shareholders get cash, and they’re only taxed on the difference between their selling price and what they originally paid for the shares — their capital gains.
Isn't it interesting that the possibility of «buybacks» is not simply the natural state since humans exist. Instead a change of the code of law was necessary – meaning: it got pushed through. By whom? The top-10% – more precisely: by a little bit of their money that greased many hands/wheels.
Robert Reich writes: «Before Ronald Reagan’s SEC allowed them in 1982, buybacks were treated as illegal stock manipulations in violation of the 1933 and 1934 Securities and Exchange Acts.»
https://robertreich.substack.com/p/stock-buybacks-are-lethal-literally
>Is what the population holds – indirectly – through pensions funds/401(k)s included in this graph?
Yes. "Corporate equities and mutual funds" there (includes ETFs which aren't *technically* mutual funds...) includes households' holdings in their IRA, 401K "retirement" accounts, and etc.
Equities/funds "held" by households via their "defined contribution" pension plans, however, are tallied in the Pension Entitlements category — the third largest HH asset category after equities and real estate. (Top-10% wealtholders "only" own 57% of those DC pension entitlements.)
> concerning pension funds/401(k)s we have something not far off of the same distribution
Very interesting. I'd be curious to see the magnitude (and distribution) of retirement accounts. I've never dug up that info.
> buybacks were treated as illegal stock manipulations
Exactly right, grrrrr. They didn't actually repeal the S & Ex Act provisions, instead they put out Rule 10B-18, which provides a "safe harbor" for buybacks large enough to fit several of the world's navies in. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rule10b18.asp
I see SEC is currently floating some new rules that at first glance seems to make the whole safe-harbor bizness even more ornate and impenetrable than it is now...
What’s your opinion on this: «The University of Michigan Survey of Consumer Sentiment shows that a record-high 30% of the population has stocks worth more than $500,000, and 37% own a home worth more than $500,000, ...»
https://www.apolloacademy.com/household-wealth-gains-are-a-tailwind-to-consumer-spending/
I don't know this survey well (in particular how it extracts "consumers" wealth, when there are multiple consumers in a wealtholding household/family/tax unit), but it seems to me the top chart must actually be showing:
Percent of consumers [¡who own any stocks!] that hold less than $10K.
The *total*-wealth *upper* limit for the DFAs' bottom-50% *households* is...$242,000.
Asset swaps indeed, not directly impacting on productivity. This focus on short term financial gains come at the expense of long term productivity enhancing activities. Underinvesting in the future have broader economic repercussions?
👍 Variously phrased by various people:
The best minds of my generation are...trying to get people click on web ads.