Thursday, February 11, 2016

Here is the letter the world's largest investor, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, just sent to CEOs everywhere

Here is the letter the world's largest investor, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, just sent to CEOs everywhere

Follow Business Insider: 
Larry Fink, the chief executive at BlackRock, the world's biggest investor with $4.6 trillion, just sent a letter to chief executives at S&P 500 companies and large European corporations. 
The letter focuses on short-termism both in corporate America and Europe, but also in politics, and asks CEOs to better articulate their plans for the future.
Business Insider managed to get a hold of the letter and is running it in full below (emphasis ours):
Over the past several years, I have written to the CEOs of leading companies urging resistance to the powerful forces of short-termism afflicting corporate behavior. Reducing these pressures and working instead to invest in long-term growth remains an issue of paramount importance for BlackRock’s clients, most of whom are saving for retirement and other long-term goals, as well as for the entire global economy.
While we’ve heard strong support from corporate leaders for taking such a long-term view, many companies continue to engage in practices that may undermine their ability to invest for the future. Dividends paid out by S&P 500 companies in 2015 amounted to the highest proportion of their earnings since 2009. As of the end of the third quarter of 2015, buybacks were up 27% over 12 months. We certainly support returning excess cash to shareholders, but not at the expense of value-creating investment. We continue to urge companies to adopt balanced capital plans, appropriate for their respective industries, that support strategies for long-term growth.
We also believe that companies have an obligation to be open and transparent about their growth plans so that shareholders can evaluate them and companies’ progress in executing on those plans. 
We are asking that every CEO lay out for shareholders each year a strategic framework for long-term value creation. Additionally, because boards have a critical role to play in strategic planning, we believe CEOs should explicitly affirm that their boards have reviewed those plans. BlackRock’s corporate governance team, in their engagement with companies, will be looking for this framework and board review.
Annual shareholder letters and other communications to shareholders are too often backwards-looking and don’t do enough to articulate management’s vision and plans for the future. This perspective on the future, however, is what investors and all stakeholders truly need, including, for example, how the company is navigating the competitive landscape, how it is innovating, how it is adapting to technological disruption or geopolitical events, where it is investing and how it is developing its talent. As part of this effort, companies should work to develop financial metrics, suitable for each company and industry, that support a framework for long-term growth. Components of long-term compensation should be linked to these metrics.
We recognize that companies operate in fluid environments and face a challenging mix of external dynamics. Given the right context, long-term shareholders will understand, and even expect, that you will need to pivot in response to the changing environments you are navigating. But one reason for investors’ short-term horizons is that companies have not sufficiently educated them about the ecosystems they are operating in, what their competitive threats are and how technology and other innovations are impacting their businesses.
Without clearly articulated plans, companies risk losing the faith of long-term investors. Companies also expose themselves to the pressures of investors focused on maximizing near-term profit at the expense of long-term value. Indeed, some short-term investors (and analysts) offer more compelling visions for companies than the companies themselves, allowing these perspectives to fill the void and build support for potentially destabilizing actions.
Those activists who focus on long-term value creation sometimes do offer better strategies than management. In those cases, BlackRock’s corporate governance team will support activist plans. During the 2015 proxy season, in the 18 largest U.S. proxy contests (as measured by market cap), BlackRock voted with activists 39% of the time.
Nonetheless, we believe that companies are usually better served when ideas for value creation are part of an overall framework developed and driven by the company, rather than forced upon them in a proxy fight. With a better understanding of your long-term strategy, the process by which it is determined, and the external factors affecting your business, shareholders can put your annual financial results in the proper context.
Over time, as companies do a better job laying out their long-term growth frameworks, the need diminishes for quarterly EPS guidance, and we would urge companies to move away from providing it. Today’s culture of quarterly earnings hysteria is totally contrary to the long-term approach we need. To be clear, we do believe companies should still report quarterly results – “long-termism” should not be a substitute for transparency – but CEOs should be more focused in these reports on demonstrating progress against their strategic plans than a one-penny deviation from their EPS targets or analyst consensus estimates.
With clearly communicated and understood long-term plans in place, quarterly earnings reports would be transformed from an instrument of incessant short-termism into a building block of long-term behavior. They would serve as a useful “electrocardiogram” for companies, providing information on how companies are performing against the “baseline EKG” of their long-term plan for value creation.
We also are proposing that companies explicitly affirm to shareholders that their boards have reviewed their strategic plans. This review should be a rigorous process that provides the board the necessary context and allows for a robust debate. Boards have an obligation to review, understand, discuss and challenge a company’s strategy.
Generating sustainable returns over time requires a sharper focus not only on governance, but also on environmental and social factors facing companies today. These issues offer both risks and opportunities, but for too long, companies have not considered them core to their business – even when the world’s political leaders are increasingly focused on them, as demonstrated by the Paris Climate Accord. Over the long-term, environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues – ranging from climate change to diversity to board effectiveness – have real and quantifiable financial impacts.
At companies where ESG issues are handled well, they are often a signal of operational excellence. BlackRock has been undertaking a multi-year effort to integrate ESG considerations into our investment processes, and we expect companies to have strategies to manage these issues. Recent action from the U.S. Department of Labor makes clear that pension fund fiduciaries can include ESG factors in their decision making as well. We recognize that the culture of short-term results is not something that can be solved by CEOs and their boards alone. Investors, the media and public officials all have a role to play. In Washington (and other capitals), long-term is often defined as simply the next election cycle, an attitude that is eroding the economic foundations of our country.
Public officials must adopt policies that will support long-term value creation. Companies, for their part, must recognize that while advocating for more infrastructure or comprehensive tax reform may not bear fruit in the next quarter or two, the absence of effective long-term policies in these areas undermines the economic ecosystem in which companies function – and with it, their chances for long-term growth.
We note two areas, in particular, where policymakers taking a longer-term perspective could help support the growth of companies and the entire economy:
• First, tax policy too often lacks proper incentives for long-term behavior. With capital gains, for example, one year shouldn’t qualify as a long-term holding period. As I wrote last year, we need a capital gains regime that rewards long-term investment – with long-term treatment only after three years, and a decreasing tax rate for each year of ownership beyond that (potentially dropping to zero after 10 years).
• Second, chronic underinvestment in infrastructure in the U.S. – from roads to sewers to the power grid – will not only cost businesses and consumers $1.8 trillion over the next five years, but clearly represents a threat to the ability of companies to grow. At a time of massive global inequality, investment in infrastructure – and all its benefits, including job creation – is also critical for growth in most emerging markets around the world. Companies and investors must advocate for action to fill the gaping chasm between our massive infrastructure needs and squeezed government funding, including strategies for developing private-sector financing mechanisms.
Over the past few years, we’ve seen more and more discussion around how to foster a long-term mindset. While these discussions are encouraging, we will only achieve our goal by changing practices and policies, and CEOs of America’s leading companies have a vital role to play in that debate.
Corporate leaders have historically been a source of optimism about the future of our economy. At a time when there is so much anxiety and uncertainty in the capital markets, in our political discourse and across our society more broadly, it is critical that investors in particular hear a forward-looking vision about your own company’s prospects and the public policy you need to achieve consistent, sustainable growth. The solutions to these challenges are in our hands, and I ask that you join me in helping to answer them.
Sincerely,
Laurence D. Fink


KYLE BASS: China is already out of money

KYLE BASS: China is already out of money

Texan hedge fund manager J. Kyle Bass, the founder of Dallas-based Hayman Capital, sent out a big letter to investors explaining why he thinks China has a problem much larger than the 2008 subprime crisis.
Bass notes that many folks look at the foreign-exchange (FX) reserves of $3.2 trillion and think that China will be just fine.
It's really not enough, though, based on Bass' calculations.According to Bass, the country is out of money today. In other words, China no longer has enough liquid reserves.
The letter said, with Bass' emphasis:
Responses we receive when discussing the FX reserve levels of China are filled with reverence: 'No country in the world has ever achieved $4 trillion in FX reserves by running such enormous trade surpluses with the rest of the world.' While true, this analysis fails to frame the proper context of the larger situation. When a host country has a large industrial base, enormous money supply (M2), and large import/export business, there is a certain amount of liquid reserves that are required to run the day-to-day operations of the country (think working capital). Over the years, the IMF has fine-tuned the formula used to calculate this ‘reserve-adequacy’ metric. It can be best calculated as follows:
Minimum FX Reserves = 10% of Exports + 30% of Short-term FX Debt + 10% of M2 + 15% of Other Liabilities
For China the equation is as follows: 10% * $2.2T + 30% * $680B + 10% * (RMB 139.3T / 6.6) + 15% * $1.0T = $2.7 trillion of required minimum reserves
Hayman Capital estimates that China's FX reserves right now are in a range of $2.1 trillion to $2.2 trillion if you take commitments to various bodies like China's sovereign wealth fund (CIC) into account.
According to Bass, China's reserves are "already below a critical level of minimum reserve adequacy."
"In other words, China is CURRENTLY out of the required level of reserves needed to safely operate its financial system," Bass wrote. "The view that China has years of reserves to burn through is misinformed. China’s back is completely up against the wall today, which is one of the primary reasons why the government is hypersensitive to any comments regarding its reserve levels or a hard landing."
Bass is among a handful of hedge fund managers betting against China's currency, the yuan.Much of Hayman Capital's fund right now is devoted to the yuan short.

Record numbers renounced their U.S. citizenship in 2015

Record numbers renounced their U.S. citizenship in 2015

By Shawn Price   |   Feb. 8, 2016 at 4:18 AM

A record number of people renounced their U.S. citizenship or gave up their green card in 2015, the third year in a row that people have done so -- likely due to stricter tax laws. File Photo by Roger L. Wollenberg/UPI 
License Photo
WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 (UPI) -- A record number of people, some U.S. citizens and some green card holders, renounced their citizenship or gave up their green cards in 2015, the Treasury Department said.
For the third consecutive year, the number of people giving up their citizenship or green card has topped the previous year. Last year, it was 4,279 people, and it's most likely due to newer, more strict tax policies.
The passing of the Foreign Accounts Tax Compliance Act in 2010 was designed as a tool to fight tax evasion in the months after the UBS AG Bank scandal, which revealed that a large bank could aid rich clients who held dual residency in the United States and elsewhere to avoid U.S. taxes. UBS eventually paid $547 million to settle the case.
U.S. citizens can be required to pay taxes regardless of which country they live in for periods of time. But the law also allowed the U.S. government to go after foreign bank accounts, which prompted many foreign banks to drop their U.S. customers. Eventually, some of the those customers just renounced their U.S. citizenship.
"An increasing number of Americans appear to believe that having a U.S. passport or long-term residency isn't worth the hassle and cost of complying with U.S. tax laws," Andrew Mitchel, an international lawyer who analyzes IRS data, told the Wall Street Journal.
Because of the law, the United States was able to recoup $13.5 billion from foreign bank accounts.

Coca-Cola stops making drinks at three Indian plants

Coca-Cola stops making drinks at three Indian plants

[NEW DELHI] Coca-Cola has halted manufacturing at three plants in India temporarily on lower sales, company officials said Thursday, as the US giant faces challenges from activists over alleged depletion of groundwater.
Nearly 300 people work at the three plants in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Meghalaya and Rajasthan, where activists have waged a more than decade-long battle against the fizzy drinks company.
"Manufacturing at three units have been temporarily suspended," Kalyan Rajan, spokesman for Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages, which bottles drinks in India for the US giant.
Fifty four plants produce fizzy drinks in India for Coca-Cola, which had been eyeing expansion in the world's second most populous country where income levels are rising.
"For some time the market has not been good for the beverage industry in India owing to multiple factors," Kamlesh Sharma, spokesman for Coca-Cola India, a subsidiary of the giant, told AFP.
Sharma said the factory in Kaladera in Rajasthan did not close because of activism. And he denied the plant had depleted the water table, saying it tapped only a small share.
The company has faced strong resistance in Kaladera from groups who say it has diverted already scarce water meant for farmers and their fields.
"There is no water in Kaladera. We have to dig 400 to 500 feet (122 to 152 metres) to get water. Two decades ago it was 100 feet," Mahesh Yogi, of local activist group Kaladera Sangharsh Samiti, told AFP.
The Atlanta-based company, which has said it plans to invest US$5 billion in India by 2020, has faced a string of objections over the years from local communities over water use.
In 2004, the company shut one of its plants in southern Kerala state over similar allegations. The company denies any wrongdoing.
Last year it dropped plans to open a new bottling plant in southern Tamil Nadu state over protests by locals who also claimed it would rob them of groundwater.
In 2014, it scrapped expansion of an existing plant in northern Uttar Pradesh state after authorities denied permission on local protests.
AFP

Dozens face riot charges over Hong Kong Lunar New Year violence

Dozens face riot charges over Hong Kong Lunar New Year violence

[HONG KONG] Dozens of people in Hong Kong were charged on Thursday with taking part in a riot after a dispute between vendors and police on the first day of the Lunar New Year holiday blew up into city's worst violence since pro-democracy protests in 2014.
64 people have been arrested in connection with the Monday night violence that saw protesters hurl bricks at police and set fire to rubbish bins in Mong Kok, a tough, working-class neighbourhood just across the harbour from the heart of the Asian financial centre. 37 were charged on Thursday.
Police fired two warning shots into the air, almost unheard in the former British colony which reverted to Chinese rule in 1997 and is considered one of Asia's safest cities.
More than 130 people were wounded in the clashes.
The violence has compounded a sense of unease since an 'Occupy Central' pro-democracy movement in late 2014 that saw thousands of protesters block major roads, including in Mong Kok, to demand Beijing's Communist leaders allow full democracy in the city.
At least one of those charged in connection with this week's trouble belongs to a group called Hong Kong Indigenous, one of a cluster of outspoken groups calling for greater Hong Kong autonomy and even independence from China, the group said.
Hong Kong Indigenous confirmed to Reuters that one of its members, Edward Leung, had been arrested.
Mr Leung, who had been planning to contest a by-election for the Hong Kong legislature, was one of those who appeared in court on Thursday.
The head of the University of Hong Kong student union, Billy Fung, said three of its students were also in court. Students from the university were at the forefront of the 2014 protests.
38 people, including 35 men and 3 women aged between 15 and 70, were charged with participating in a "riot", the police said in a statement. The 15-year-old was due to appear in a juvenile court on Friday.
The defendants, who appeared one after another before the court including one with a bandage on his head, were granted bail though ordered to stay away from areas where the clashes took place.
The next hearing will be on April 7, following a request by prosecutor David Leung to allow authorities time to gather evidence.
Rioting carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.
The violence broke out after police tried to clear hawkers selling snacks and trinkets at stalls on the first day of the Lunar New Year holiday.
REUTERS

728 X 90

336 x 280

300 X 250

320 X 100

300 X600