Yeah.....something like that (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/12/AR2007111201688.html?hpid=sec-business). :rolleyes:

*

"Several managers said they were making more money financing start-up firms in China than in any other country in the world. David M. Rubenstein of the Carlyle Group called China the "new Silicon Valley." Michael Pralle, a real estate investment executive, said urban land values could go off the charts as a wave of people -- nearly twice the population of Japan -- are expected to migrate from rural areas to cities, creating massive demand for housing, offices and retail stores."

yeah so? what's wrong with that? If we don't invest in china, somebody will anyway and we'll lose out on that opportunity. At least this way, American companies retain ownership and that wealth is brought back to the US through shareholding, dividends, eventual sale of the companies, etc.

If US Steel had done this 30 or 40 years ago, we wouldn't have Mittal as the steel juggernaut he is today. US Steel would still be the biggest steel company in the world and its shareholders wouldn't have lost their shirts in the 80s and 90s.
(Of course their shares are doing well now because of many other reasons. This is just an example so don't just jump all over the example)

I am a democrat but most democrats are WRONG on business.

Whats wrong with that?

Well, lets start with the fact that China is a Communist Dictatorship.

Does the phrase "Tienanmen Square" mean anything to you?

How do you think they are able to make products so cheaply?

Because China is a Communist Dictatorship.

They are using Capitalism against us by undermining our economy with their slave labor (http://ihscslnews.org/view_article.php?id=57), making us dependent upon them and making us vulnerable to their whims.

China is defeating America without ever firing a single shot by using American greed against us.

Now we have our own media undermining us by feeding us this kind of bullshit. (http://thesarcasticcynic.blogspot.com/2007/08/what-hell-is-wrong-with-chris-matthews.html)

yeah so? what's wrong with that? If we don't invest in china, somebody will anyway and we'll lose out on that opportunity. At least this way, American companies retain ownership and that wealth is brought back to the US through shareholding, dividends, eventual sale of the companies, etc.
Yeah.....those (pre-War) tax-cuts came, just-in-time! :rolleyes:

Have another Kool-Aid!

So the tax cuts in '03 are driving investment decisions in '07?

It has nothing to do with return on invested capital does it? This idea come to you while you were sitting in the WC?

Your understanding of economics is about as coherent as a 5th graders.

So the tax cuts in '03 are driving investment decisions in '07?
Oh.....I'd say decisions were in-the-works (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0305-03.htm) a little-earlier than '03. :rolleyes:

A conspiracy theorist, omg.

So which tax cuts (and how did they work) in '03 were the driving force behind the decisions to make acquisitions in China?

this explanation should be a real hoot.:woohoo:

A conspiracy theorist, omg.

So which tax cuts (and how did they work) in '03 were the driving force behind the decisions to make acquisitions in China?

this explanation should be a real hoot.
"...conspiracy...."?

Hardly. In financial-circles, it's referred-to as business-as-usual.

Give it time, Skippy.....give it time. Eventually, you'll catch-on. :lolhit:

Business as usual is hardly an explanation for the issues at hand. More like a copout, a throwaway line to put an end to the discussion while attempting to hide the likelihood you haven't got a clue.

C'mon give us an indication you have a clue.

So the tax cuts in '03 are driving investment decisions in '07?

Of course they are.
They dropped the top tax rate for dividends to 15%. OF COURSE that will drive investment decisions.


It has nothing to do with return on invested capital does it?

You don't think cutting the tax rate on dividends will effect the amount of return on an investment???


Your understanding of economics is about as coherent as a 5th graders.

Which is apparently a grade higher than yours.

:thumbs:
db

Dividends are a second level of taxation. Dropping the tax level on dividends does nothing to increase or decrease the determination of whether something is a good investment or not. Cost of capital, interest rates, and ROI are what drives those decisions. Carlyle or KKR or Forstman make their money on buying and selling the business (their not operators).

Keep trying.

Dropping the tax level on dividends does nothing to increase or decrease the determination of whether something is a good investment or not.

But it does drive the fundamental question of whether they invest at all and if so how much. The rest of the decisions are secondary to that decision.

Keep trying.

:thumbs:
db

No it doesn't. The dividend rate doesn't drive the investment process whatsoever. It's not even a secondary consideration because the first things that get calculated are the ROI and what drives the ROI is cost of capital and the growth that capital generates. If the ROI is greater than the hurdle rate then the investment gets made, if it can't beat the hurdle they won't do it. this is business 101.

That's why you don't see many technology companies paying dividends. They can get a greater return on their capital by reinvesting in the business than paying it out to their shareholders.

No it doesn't. The dividend rate doesn't drive the investment process whatsoever.

Of course it does. If I am going to get a 15% tax rate for dividends, I am going to put more money into pre-tax investments rather than pay a 34% income tax on that money as wages.

I am also more likely put more disposable income into investments since I will be getting more of it back after taxes.

If the tax rate goes down, my ROI goes up.
Business 101.

Of course it does. If I am going to get a 15% tax rate for dividends, I am going to put more money into pre-tax investments rather than pay a 34% income tax on that money as wages.

I am also more likely put more disposable income into investments since I will be getting more of it back after taxes.

If the tax rate goes down, my ROI goes up.
Business 101.

That's fine if you're an individual investor buying shares in companies that pay dividends. But Carlyle et al aren't making that type of decision. They are buying businesses at what they think are cheap prices and looking to cut costs, open new markets, exploit hidden assets and sell the company down the road for a profit. Private SpamSpamSpamSpamSpamSpam looks for increased value through growth, not dividends. If they wanted cash flow they could buy municipals which come tax free and be further ahead than just buying a dividend rate.

Given that the yield on most stocks is something round 2% your after tax return isn't much different than the yield on a 5 yr Treasury with a great deal more risk.

The Carlyle Group isn't paying the same taxes we are are talking about, but its individual members, who are individual investors are.

Ultimately the decision comes down to an individual investor and whether they are going to invest in something and if so, how much. Their ROI, regardless of what they invest in or what they company they invest in invests in, will be effected by the rate at which any investment income for that individual is taxed.

Carlyle or KKR or Forstman make their money on buying and selling the business (their not operators).
....After they've been gutted of assets (that can be sold-off.....leaving the company an empty-shell).

BTW, Skippy.....that's "they're not operators." :rolleyes:

The Carlyle Group isn't paying the same taxes we are are talking about,

That's why dividends are irrelevant.

but its individual members, who are individual investors are. You might want to go back and read who there investors are. Primarily pension funds, other private SpamSpamSpamSpamSpamSpam funds, investment banks etc. The dividend rate for these guys is irrelevant.

Ultimately the decision comes down to an individual investor and whether they are going to invest in something and if so, how much. Their ROI, regardless of what they invest in or what they company they invest in invests in, will be effected by the rate at which any investment income for that individual is taxed.
For an individual investor that true. But Carlyle isn't an individual, it's an entity subject to a completely different set of tax considerations.

....After they've been gutted of assets (that can be sold-off.....leaving the company an empty-shell).

BTW, Skippy.....that's "they're not operators." :rolleyes:

You can do better than that, no? How about a complete indictment of the capitalist system? The downtrodden proletariat and all that. Some Marxist/Lenninist demagoguery? Or perhaps some more recent stuff from Fanon or Che?

You can do better than that, no? How about a complete indictment of the capitalist system? The downtrodden proletariat and all that. Some Marxist/Lenninist demagoguery? Or perhaps some more recent stuff from Fanon or Che?
In-other-words....you concur! :rolleyes:

In-other-words....you concur! :rolleyes:

Right:thumbs: , but if it floats your boat.