Mais um artigo retirado do site FinancialSense, desta vez é uma carta aberta ao Exterminador - Arnold Schwarzenegger...um texto cheio de sumo.
Who's an "Economic Girly Man"?
(The following is sent as an open letter to Arnold Schwarzenegger.)
by Martin Goldberg and Elyse Goldberg
Dear Arnold,
The speech that your read at the GOP convention last week peaked our interest as to what you meant by the term “Economic Girly Men”. While our first notion was that the use of this blatantly derogatory term was sexist, homophobic, or both, and at the least, politically incorrect considering the context of a national political convention, perhaps we just didn’t understand your use of the term. Political correctness aside, our second reaction was to think that by “Economic Girly Man”, you may have been referring to those American consumer/wage earners not blindly embracing in total, the bullish economic rhetoric being espoused by those in charge. However on further review, it seems more likely to us that you may have been referring to corporate officers and board members of most large publicly traded companies as “Economic Girly Men”.
What is, exactly, an economic Girly Man? Are these people the citizens who question the completely optimistic view put out by those in charge? If that were the case, then your good friend and mentor Warren Buffett, having expressed pessimistic views of the nation’s balance sheet, large corporation-favoring taxation policies, and the strength of the dollar is an economic Girly Man. We cannot believe you would treat such an esteemed mentor of yours with such blatant inconsideration. We believe that Warren Buffett has more economic sense than an entire arena full of politicians (either in Boston or New York), and therefore not deserving of such a derogatory term.
When you implored the average American consumer to not be a, “Girly Man,” it confused us. The average American taxpayer has been bearing the entire burden of this so-called economic recovery by donating his savings and home equity while going into record-breaking debt for the cause of a thriving economy. He is bravely buying and holding overpriced financial assets in his retirement accounts that pay miniscule dividends, while presuming unprecedented success and growth of American corporations in the future. If these over-leveraged citizens have serious concerns about the strength of the economy, are they in fact, “Girly Men”? They are showing their machismo by their actions (not their words), and do not deserve to be subject to a derogatory term. This is in direct contrast to the behavior of large publicly traded companies’ corporate executives.
Also consider Mr. Schwarzenegger, that unlike most corporate executives, the typical American wage earner works under a salary at will contract with his employer. He can be dismissed, in many cases with no healthcare coverage and precious little in corporate benefits for him or his family. By and large, he cannot earn money by posing on stage in a Speedo, and flexing his muscles or marrying a Kennedy. So does that make him a Girly Man?
May be you were not referring to the American consumer when you uttered the term Girly Man. Although I find it hard to believe that you were speaking negatively of American corporate executives at the GOP convention, perhaps you were referring to these corporate managers and insiders as “Girly Men”. Consider the following corporate behaviors prevalent in today’s US economy:
- As reported in Barron’s last week, S&P 500 companies now have just under $600 billion in cash on their books (excluding Microsoft, financial companies, and quasi-financial companies General Electric, General Motors, and Ford Motor) available for capital investment, yet unused. We presume that unlike most wage earners, these large company managements lack sufficient optimism in the economy. This appears to be a glaring absence of confidence compared to the behavior of the typical American consumer who has taken on unprecedented levels of debt. Investment of this cash hoard would have a direct positive effect on the economy and employment, yet in the face of all of the economic stimulation, the cash remains on the sidelines. So are these investment gun-shy corporate managers not Girly Men?
- Of the 30 companies comprising the Dow Jones Industrial Average, 22 companies have insider ownership of less than 4%. In addition, 27 of the 30 companies show no significant insider buying and the broad majority of all publicly owned companies show overwhelming insider selling to buying ratios. Are not these corporate insiders that show a lack of confidence in their companies by selling and not owning or buying their company stock also economic Girly Men? Dubious insider selling has also been practiced by some of your best friends, Arnold.
- We think that “Manly” companies should pay their shareholders in cold hard cash, in the same way typical wage earners are paid salaries, yet many of our most loved corporate entities (especially technology companies) pay their executives in stock options. Are not these corporations and the recipients of these un-expensed stock options not Girly Men?
- When they fail or bail, most corporate executives take away a generous package of corporate booty. While we realize these cushy arrangements are oftentimes deserved given corporate executives’ delicate genius, especially in the area of creative accounting and rosy quotes and headlines, are not these cushy packages also the stuff of corporate economic Girly Men?
We suppose Arnold, that it’s just a question of our broadly diverging perspectives. For example, it seems difficult for me to consider your natural sport of bodybuilding in a positive light. You might see it as a manly sports competition, equal to that of basketball or rugby, while others may view it quite differently. What seems vastly masculine for some is not for others. Similarly, we think your characterization of economically skeptical American citizens as “Girly Men” are without basis and just wrong. Similarly, you may find our characterizations of certain corporate managements to be incorrect as well.
For now may be we’ll just agree to disagree on the definition of Economic Girly Man. But while we have your ear, Arnold, we would like to ask you about an analogy that is often used as it applies to our current American economy, which involves economic steroids. Many astute observers of the economy have noted that the use of excessive economic debt and credit without a plan for making good for all the debt is entirely analogous to bodybuilders’ use of steroids. That is, it works for a while, but over the long term, is extremely hazardous to one’s health. To us, it seems like a good analogy, and although we know you never took steroids (you are our hero) we’re sure you’re familiar with the temptation to use steroids where the short-term benefit to your sport is so apparently obvious. I doubt that you will get any valuable answers from your friends in New York or at the Kennedy compound, but we think a call to Mr. Buffett in Omaha, Nebraska would be well worth your time.
Finally, Arnold, although we enjoyed the speech that you read, we were not impressed by your opening line that sited the movie, “True Lies.” Perhaps it is a custom of your native land or tongue to open speeches with the title of a popular show or performance without explaining any supporting basis. Therefore for your next script or speech reading, may we suggest characterizing your week in New York as “Eyes Wide Shut?”
Fans of your Movies (and not much else),
Martin and Elyse G.
Martin and daughter, Elyse, composed this letter in New York traffic on the way to Boston University. Elyse is a freshman at Boston U.
O Clubeinvest.com informa que nenhuma da informação
aqui facultada deverá ser entendida como conselho ou recomendação
de qualquer tipo de transacção ou investimento.
