scholarly journals Why the CHIPS Are Down: Stock Buybacks and Subsidies in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Lazonick ◽  
◽  
Matt Hopkins ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Stock Prices ◽  
Semiconductor Industry ◽  
The United States ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Open Market ◽  
Chip Technology ◽  
The Government ◽  
Stock Buybacks ◽  
The U.S

The Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) is promoting the Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS) for America Act, introduced in Congress in June 2020. An SIA press release describes the bill as “bipartisan legislation that would invest tens of billions of dollars in semiconductor manufacturing incentives and research initiatives over the next 5-10 years to strengthen and sustain American leadership in chip technology, which is essential to our country’s economy and national security.” On June 8, 2021, the Senate approved $52 billion for the CHIPS for America Act, dedicated to supporting the U.S. semiconductor industry over the next decade. As of this writing, the Act awaits approval in the House of Representatives. This paper highlights a curious paradox: Most of the SIA corporate members now lobbying for the CHIPS for America Act have squandered past support that the U.S. semiconductor industry has received from the U.S. government for decades by using their corporate cash to do buybacks to boost their own companies’ stock prices. Among the SIA corporate signatories of the letter to President Biden, the five largest stock repurchasers—Intel, IBM, Qualcomm, Texas Instruments, and Broadcom—did a combined $249 billion in buybacks over the decade 2011-2020, equal to 71 percent of their profits and almost five times the subsidies over the next decade for which the SIA is lobbying. In addition, among the members of the Semiconductors in America Coalition (SIAC), formed specifically in May 2021 to lobby Congress for the passage of the CHIPS for America Act, are Apple, Microsoft, Cisco, and Google. These firms spent a combined $633 billion on buybacks during 2011-2020. That is about 12 times the government subsidies provided under the CHIPS for America Act to support semiconductor fabrication in the United States in the upcoming decade. If the Congress wants to achieve the legislation’s stated purpose of promoting major new investments in semiconductors, it needs to deal with this paradox. It could, for example, require the SIA and SIAC to extract pledges from its member corporations that they will cease doing stock buybacks as open-market repurchases over the next ten years. Such regulation could be a first step in rescinding Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-18, which has since 1982 been a major cause of extreme income inequality and loss of global industrial competitiveness in the United States.

Significant Differences in Proved Reserves Estimates Using SPE/WPC Definitions Compared to United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Definitions

2005 ◽  
Vol 8 (06) ◽  
pp. 520-527 ◽  
Author(s):  
D.R. Harrell ◽  
Thomas L. Gardner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
The United States ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Classification Systems ◽  
Direct Function ◽  
Oil Companies ◽  
Publicly Owned ◽  
Hydrocarbon Reserves ◽  
The U.S

Summary A casual reading of the SPE/WPC (World Petroleum Congresses) Petroleum Reserves Definitions (1997) and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission(SEC) definitions (1978) would suggest very little, if any, difference in the quantities of proved hydrocarbon reserves estimated under those two classification systems. The differences in many circumstances for both volumetric and performance-based estimates may be small. In 1999, the SEC began to increase its review process, seeking greater understanding and compliance with its oil and gas reserves reporting requirements. The agency's definitions had been promulgated in 1978 in connection with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 and at a time when most publicly owned oil and gas companies and their reserves were located in the United States. Oil and gas prices were relatively stable, and virtually all natural gas was marketed through long-term contracts at fixed or determinable prices. Development drilling was subject to well-spacing regulations as established through field rules set by state agencies. Reservoir-evaluation technology has advanced far beyond that used in 1978;production-sharing contracts were uncommon then, and probabilistic reserves assessment was not widely recognized or appreciated in the U.S. These changes in industry practice plus many other considerations have created problems in adapting the 1978 vintage definitions to the technical and commercial realities of the 21st century. This paper presents several real-world examples of how the SEC engineering staff has updated its approach to reserves assessment as well as numerous remaining unresolved areas of concern. These remaining issues are important, can lead to significant differences in reported quantities and values, and may result in questions about the "full disclosure" obligations to the SEC. Introduction For virtually all oil and gas producers, their company assets are the hydrocarbon reserves that they own through various forms of mineral interests, licensing agreements, or other contracts and that produce revenues from production and sale. Reserves are almost always reported as static quantities as of a specific date and classified into one or more categories to describe the uncertainty and production status associated with each category. The economic value of these reserves is a direct function of how the quantities are to be produced and sold over the physical or contract lives of the properties. Reserves owned by private and publicly owned companies are always assumed to be those quantities of oil and gas that can be produced and sold at a profit under assumed future prices and costs. Reserves under the control of state-owned or national oil companies may reflect quantities that exceed those deemed profitable under the commercial terms typically imposed on private or publicly owned companies.

scholarly journals OLD AND FORGOTTEN? CARE FOR ELDERS IN MEXICO AND THE U.S.

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S64-S65
Author(s):  
Emma Aguila ◽  
Jaqueline L Angel ◽  
Kyriakos Markides
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Old Age ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Health Care Financing ◽  
Safety Net ◽  
The United States ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
The Government ◽  
The U.S

Abstract The United States and Mexico differ greatly in the organization and financing of their old-age welfare states. They also differ politically and organizationally in government response at all levels to the needs of low-income and frail citizens. While both countries are aging rapidly, Mexico faces more serious challenges in old-age support that arise from a less developed old-age welfare state and economy. For Mexico, financial support and medical care for older low-income citizens are universal rights, however, limited fiscal resources for a large low-income population create inevitable competition among the old and the young alike. Although the United States has a more developed economy and well-developed Social Security and health care financing systems for the elderly, older Mexican-origin individuals in the U.S. do not necessarily benefit fully from these programs. These institutional and financial problems to aging are compounded in both countries by longer life spans, smaller families, as well as changing gender roles and cultural norms. In this interdisciplinary panel, the authors of five papers deal with the following topics: (1) an analysis of old age health and dependency conditions, the supply of aging and disability services, and related norms and policies, including the role of the government and the private sector; (2) a binational comparison of federal safety net programs for low-income elderly in U.S. and Mexico; (3) when strangers become family: the role of civil society in addressing the needs of aging populations; and (4) unmet needs for dementia care for Latinos in the Hispanic-EPESE.

scholarly journals A Dream of Dual Citizenship

Genealogy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 56
Author(s):  
Karen Bernadette Mclean Dade
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
The United States ◽  
Dual Citizenship ◽  
Family Stories ◽  
Cabo Verde ◽  
Language Class ◽  
The Government ◽  
The U.S

Many problems exist for United States (U.S.) descendants of Cabo Verde (In 2015, the government of Cabo Verde asked in the United Nations that the official name be Cabo Verde in all documents, opposed to the colonial version, “Cape Verde”) Islands seeking dual citizenship. Much of this is due to multiple 20th century racial discriminatory practices by the U.S. in soliciting cheap labor from Cabo Verde Islands, including changing the birth names of Cabo Verdean immigrants when they entered the United States. Without knowing the true birth names of their ancestors, descendants such as myself have no access to proof of birth in the dual citizenship process. Years often pass by as Cabo Verdean Americans search for clues that may lead to proving their legal status through family stories, and track related names as well as birth and death records. For many, dual citizenship may never be granted from the Cabo Verdean government, despite having U.S. death certificates that state that the family member was born in Cabo Verde. This autobiographical case study explores why so many Cabo Verdean Americans seek dual citizenship with a strong desire to connect to their motherland. Moreover, issues related to language, class and colorism discrimination between Cabo Verdean-born immigrants and descendants in the U.S. are explored. In so doing, the researcher hopes to ameliorate the divisions between the current government policies and Cabo Verdean American descendants, as well as build greater intracultural connections between those born in the Cabo Verde Islands and those born in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Basic U. S. Sources For Current Research In International Law: An Elementary Vade-Mecum

1977 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 347-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adolf Sprudzs
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Other ◽  
Intergovernmental Organizations ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Many ◽  
The U.S

Among the many old and new actors on the international stage of nations the United States is one of the most active and most important. The U.S. is a member of most existing intergovernmental organizations, participates in hundreds upon hundreds of international conferences and meetings every year and, in conducting her bilateral and multilateral relations with the other members of the community of nations, contributes very substantially to the development of contemporary international law. The Government of the United States has a policy of promptly informing the public about developments in its relations with other countries through a number of documentary publication, issued by the Department of State

The “Hearts and Minds” Fallacy: Violence, Coercion, and Success in Counterinsurgency Warfare

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 80-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacqueline L. Hazelton
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
El Salvador ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Building ◽  
Military Strategy ◽  
The Government ◽  
Zero Sum ◽  
Hearts And Minds ◽  
Government Benefits ◽  
The U.S

Debates over how governments can defeat insurgencies ebb and flow with international events, becoming particularly contentious when the United States encounters problems in its efforts to support a counterinsurgent government. Often the United States confronts these problems as a zero-sum game in which the government and the insurgents compete for popular support and cooperation. The U.S. prescription for success has had two main elements: to support liberalizing, democratizing reforms to reduce popular grievances; and to pursue a military strategy that carefully targets insurgents while avoiding harming civilians. An analysis of contemporaneous documents and interviews with participants in three cases held up as models of the governance approach—Malaya, Dhofar, and El Salvador—shows that counterinsurgency success is the result of a violent process of state building in which elites contest for power, popular interests matter little, and the government benefits from uses of force against civilians.

scholarly journals The effects from the United States and Japan to emerging stock markets in Asia and Vietnam

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
AISDL
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Emerging Markets ◽  
Stock Prices ◽  
Stock Markets ◽  
Spillover Effect ◽  
Spillover Effects ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Philippines ◽  
Asian Emerging Markets ◽  
The U.S

The subprime mortgage crisis in the United States (U.S.) in mid-2008 suggests that stock prices volatility do spillover from one market to another after international stock markets downturn. The purpose of this paper is to examine the magnitude of return and volatility spillovers from developed markets (the U.S. and Japan) to eight emerging equity markets (India, China, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand) and Vietnam. Employing a mean and volatility spillover model that deals with the U.S. and Japan shocks and day effects as exogenous variables in ARMA(1,1), GARCH(1,1) for Asian emerging markets, the study finds some interesting findings. Firstly, the day effect is present on six out of nine studied markets, except for the Indian, Taiwanese and Philippine. Secondly, the results of return spillover confirm significant spillover effects across the markets with different magnitudes. Specifically, the U.S. exerts a stronger influence on the Malaysian, Philippine and Vietnamese market compared with Japan. In contrast, Japan has a higher spillover effect on the Chinese, Indian, Korea, and Thailand than the U.S. For the Indonesian market, the return effect is equal. Finally, there is no evidence of a volatility effect of the U.S. and Japanese markets on the Asian emerging markets in this study.

Detecting Healthcare Fraud and Abuse in the United States

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Jesilow ◽  
Bryan Burton
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
White Collar Crime ◽  
The United States ◽  
Insurance Companies ◽  
Corporate Behavior ◽  
Illegal Activities ◽  
The Government ◽  
Almost All ◽  
The U.S

Healthcare fraud involves wide-ranging illegal behaviors. It includes such activities as individual physicians who bill insurance companies or the government for services that were never provided, as well as corporate behavior, such as pharmaceutical companies that falsify clinical tests in order to get unsafe drugs approved for use. Thousands die each year in the United States due to these behaviors, including deaths from incorrectly prescribed medications or from tainted drugs that were approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration based upon fraudulent testing and reporting. Thousands of additional patients likely are injured and killed by unnecessary surgeries performed by physicians who want to maximize their reimbursements. The illegal activities also add billions of dollars each year to the total healthcare cost in the U.S. Despite these costs, there is relatively little outrage as a result of the behaviors, largely because they remain hidden from public view. Healthcare fraud, as with almost all white-collar crime, is rarely detected and that prevents the frauds from becoming known to victims, law enforcement, and policy makers, which in turn prevents analysts from compiling a complete picture of the behaviors and prevents policymakers and law enforcement from developing efficient enforcement strategies. Moreover, the lack of detection assures perpetrators that they will get away with their crimes and limits the potential preventative effects of punishment. Lack of detection and reporting has been a particularly strong problem for those trying to control healthcare fraud and abuse in the United States and elsewhere. The enforcement mechanisms that have evolved have been strongly influenced by the difficulties of detecting the illegal behaviors.

American Politics and its Debt Issue

2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 107
Author(s):  
Balasundram Maniam
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
American Politics ◽  
Political System ◽  
Debt Crisis ◽  
The United States ◽  
Debt Level ◽  
Working Together ◽  
The Government ◽  
The U.S ◽  
The Way

The purpose of this paper is to shed some light on the on-going debate about the United States’ debt level and how U.S. lawmakers are attempting to resolve it. On the surface, it seems like they are not working together to resolve the issue, but further complicating it with various tactics, such as the government shutdown. That raises the question, “why is this the case?” to which the answer can be found through the understanding of the American political system and the way it was founded. It should be noted that many leading economists have questioned the very idea as to why we are making a big deal about the U.S. debt issue and assert that the U.S. does not have a debt crisis to begin with, and the issue is simply made up for political reasons. Many leading economists have a position on this argument and they strongly believe that their position is the correct one. The objective of this paper is to highlight those views as well as share its own view on the important topic while keeping an eye on why the U.S. political system functions the way it does.

The Origins of U.S. Support for an Autocratic Iran

1983 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Habib Ladjevardi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
State Department ◽  
The United States ◽  
Foreign Office ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Government ◽  
British Foreign Office ◽  
The U.S

At a time when the history of relations between the United States and the former Iranian regime (as well as other autocratic states) is being reconsidered, it is important to recognize that U.S. support for one-man rule in Iran did not commence in 1953 subsequent to the fall of the government of Dr. Mossadegh. A study of the diplomatic records of the U.S. State Department and the British Foreign Office indicates an earlier beginning.

China: A Challenge or Opportunity for the United States?

2003 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 293-334
Author(s):  
Jianwei Wang
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Soft Landing ◽  
The Government ◽  
Nato Bombing ◽  
The Taiwan Strait ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
The U.S

Ever since the end of the Cold War, the United States—from the government to the public, from the White House to Congress, from policymakers to pundits, from China specialists to people who know little about China—has engaged itself in the seemingly endless debate on China. Immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union, people debated whether China was still important to the United States and whether the Sino-U.S. special relationship was worth preserving. Since the early 1990s, with China's remarkable economic “soft landing” and the consequent robust and sustained economic growth, Americans seemed to have reached a consensus that China still matters to the United States for better or worse. U.S.-China relations were often referred to as one of the most important bilateral relations to the United States. But important in what way? Much debate ensued with a series of frictions between the two countries that climaxed in the dispatch of two U.S. aircraft carriers to the South China Sea during the Taiwan Strait crisis in 1996, the U.S.-led NATO bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1999, and the midair collision between the two air forces in 2001. The U.S. media tirelessly asked the question: “China: friend or foe?” The pattern for U.S. China policy since the end of the Cold War is that whenever the relationship appeared to be stabilizing and a consensus was shaping, new crises emerged and destroyed the hard-won progress, triggering another round of debate on China as if people never learned anything from the previous debate; the old and familiar discourse started all over again.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document