President Trump has proposed cutting the corporate tax rate to 15%, from a top marginal federal tax rate of 35% per KPMG plus an additional 5% for state and local taxes. (The effective tax rate may be lower.) That sounds great: At least on first glance, it would argue for buying stocks because presumably more profitable companies would conceivably drive the market higher.
However, before we get carried away, we can look to the example of Germany, which lowered corporate taxes, with the effective tax rate dropping to 29% currently from about 39% at the end of 2007, according to KPMG. A curious thing happened to corporate profitability: absolutely nothing. In fact, in the years from 2000 to 2007, the average profit margin for companies in the DAX index was 3.82%, according to Bloomberg. Then, from 2008 to 2016, profit margins were 3.94%. Similarly, ROE in the earlier period was 9.17%, and a slightly less 8.45% in the later period, according to Bloomberg.
I know, I know - you're going to make the argument that the Great Recession may have impacted German corporate profits. But that belies the whole argument that taxation drives growth: If taxes were a major driving force in economic growth, then the Great Recession theoretically might never have crossed the German border. To that point, note that the tax cut was made effective at the beginning of 2008, just as the recession was beginning. And both the earlier and the later period include both expansions and recessions.
So, having stated the conclusion already, let's now delve into the forces that conspired to restrain return on equity and profit margins.
To set the stage: Textbook economics states that, outside of monopolies and certain other exceptions, competition drives down "excess" corporate profits to zero, with the remainder of profits covering a firm's cost of capital. (That's why the average return on equity didn't budge from one period to the next.)
The question is why.
Well, if a company is suddenly handed additional funds, so to speak, it must find a use for them (aside from the obvious share buybacks and dividends). One potential avenue for deployment is capital expenditures, which would be depreciated over time, cutting into profits. At this point, I would interject that there actually has to be a need for more capex for such business investment to make sense.
We can assess the need for capex by looking at capacity utilization, which, as seen in the nearby graph, is notably low in the U.S., especially compared to history, according to Federal Reserve data. What, precisely, would be the motivation be for a company to add another machine when a quarter of their capacity is idle?
But let's hypothetically say they did invest more. That business investment would show up in economic growth, such as measured by GDP. Again, we can turn to Germany, and what we find is that GDP growth in real terms showed no discernible trends from before the tax cut vs. afterwards, according to Eurostat. Certainly, other factors were at play in suppressing economic growth - but that is precisely the point of this exercise; to see if tax policies, by themselves, are a path to riches.
Instead of boosting economic output, perhaps instead tax cuts lead to lower prices, as companies find themselves able to attempt to grab market share by being the first mover in what might turn out to be a price war (or perhaps just a skirmish). Obviously, there are many factors that feed into inflation, but one might observe that the average of annual consumer price inflation in Germany fell to 1.35% in the 2008 to 2015 period from 1.65% in the 2001 to 2007 period, according to Eurostat. Companies having extra ability to withstand lower prices and still keep stable margins meant that companies may have opted to choose maintaining market share over maximizing unit prices.
After all, once one company in a competitive industry cuts its prices, its competitors are often forced to do so. And those lower prices don't just affect their home market: Companies can "export" lower prices to other economies as well. (Currency translation and many other factors also can play a role in price setting of a company transacting business across borders.)
As companies battle over market share, prices are kept lower than they otherwise would be. Companies may increase their labor force utilization if demand for their goods and services increases as a result of lower prices. Even if companies don't raise an individual worker's wages by much, they may need to hire more workers, driving total labor costs higher - especially when productivity is low, as it is now. With prices that don't rise (or even fall a bit), and labor costs that increase as a percentage of revenues, then voila, margins and ROE remain the same as before the tax cut.
That's one theory. Of course, it may turn out differently, as every situation is at least somewhat unique. But it is hard to envision that money just magically appears and stays forever. Eventually, a tax cut must be paid for. And if corporate profits don't grow the way some predict they will, what goes down must come up, because a tax cut might not, in fact, pay for itself, as we saw with German profits before and after their tax cut. Tax cuts today could become tax hikes tomorrow - and that is the key factor that may limit corporations' desire to make permanent investments.
Disclosure: Investing involves risk, including possible loss of principal, and investors should carefully consider their own investment objectives and never rely on any single chart, graph or marketing piece to make decisions. The information contained in this piece is intended for information only, is not a recommendation to buy or sell any securities, and should not be considered investment advice. Please contact your financial adviser with questions about your specific needs and circumstances. The information and opinions expressed herein are obtained from sources believed to be reliable, however their accuracy and completeness cannot be guaranteed. All data are driven from publicly available information and has not been independently verified by United Capital. Opinions expressed are current as of the date of this publication and are subject to change, and they reflect those of the author and not necessarily United Capital. Certain statements contained within are forward-looking statements including, but not limited to, predictions or indications of future events, trends, plans or objectives. Undue reliance should not be placed on such statements because, by their nature, they are subject to known and unknown risks and uncertainties. Indices are unmanaged, do not consider the effect of transaction costs or fees, do not represent an actual account and cannot be invested to directly. International investing entails special risk considerations, including currency fluctuations, lower liquidity, economic and political risks, and different accounting methodologies.
FinLife Digest is the weekly newsletter that delivers financial news, tips, and advice from United Capital experts and other leading sources.
United Capital Financial Advisers, LLC (United Capital) provides financial guidance and makes recommendations based on the specific needs and circumstances of each client. For clients with managed accounts, United Capital has discretionary authority over investment decisions. Investing involves risk and clients should carefully consider their own investment objectives and never rely on any single chart, graph or marketing piece to make decisions. The information contained in this blog is intended for information only, is not a recommendation, and should not be considered investment advice. Please contact your financial adviser with questions about your specific needs and circumstances. This blog is a sponsored blog created or supported by United Capital and its employees, organization or group of organizations. This blog does not accept any form of advertising, sponsorship, or paid insertions. Certain authors of our blog posts may be influenced by their background, occupation, religion, political affiliation or experience. It is important to note that the views and opinions expressed on this blog are that of the owner, and not necessarily United Capital Financial Advisers. As a Registered Investment Adviser, United Capital does not allow any testimonials on their blog, and any comments deemed as such United Capital will remove.
United Capital does not offer tax or legal advice; therefore all articles should not be taken as such. Please consult legal or tax professionals for specific information regarding your individual situation. All referenced entities in this site are separate and unrelated to United Capital. Any references to any specific commercial product, process, or service, or the use of any trade, firm or corporation name is for the information and convenience of the public, and does not constitute endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by United Capital.