News Article: Half of US Inflation Due to High Corporate Profits

jthomas666

Hall of Fame
Aug 14, 2002
24,764
14,359
287
62
Birmingham & Warner Robins
We pretty much knew this, but still...


A new report claims “resounding evidence” shows that high corporate profits are a main driver of ongoing inflation, and companies continue to keep prices high even as their inflationary costs drop.
 

gtgilbert

All-American
Aug 12, 2011
4,164
7,520
187
I rarely post over here, but since this called out kimberly-clark and I've been working with them as a client for years and know they're still really struggling with Margin, here is their quarterly margin % over the last 10(ish) years. They are still well below their historical margin average. If this was the zoom in, there's something fishy in the research firms analysis for them to somehow conclude that their margin being 3-5% below pre-pandemic levels is somehow them "hording profits"

1705861116714.png

Source: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/KMB/kimberly-clark/operating-margin
 

NationalTitles18

Suspended
May 25, 2003
32,419
42,281
362
Mountainous Northern California
I rarely post over here, but since this called out kimberly-clark and I've been working with them as a client for years and know they're still really struggling with Margin, here is their quarterly margin % over the last 10(ish) years. They are still well below their historical margin average. If this was the zoom in, there's something fishy in the research firms analysis for them to somehow conclude that their margin being 3-5% below pre-pandemic levels is somehow them "hording profits"

View attachment 40305

Source: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/KMB/kimberly-clark/operating-margin
I don't see 2023 in those numbers at all. This is pertinent because they said in the article that costs were higher through Jan 2023 but then fell and that's when profits increased. This does nothing to dispel that idea.

So, do you happen to have relevant numbers?
 

gtgilbert

All-American
Aug 12, 2011
4,164
7,520
187
I don't see 2023 in those numbers at all. This is pertinent because they said in the article that costs were higher through Jan 2023 but then fell and that's when profits increased. This does nothing to dispel that idea.

So, do you happen to have relevant numbers?
The 2023 numbers are in the graph, so the relevant numbers are there.

The last 3 points in the graph are the first three quarters of 2023. If you follow the link, you can put your cursor on each point and it will show you the financial period it represents.

They have not posted their official results for Q4 so those could not be published or analyzed yet.

So yeah, at least KCC's data seems contrary to the findings the group in the article is claiming. Other companies might not though...
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: NationalTitles18

NationalTitles18

Suspended
May 25, 2003
32,419
42,281
362
Mountainous Northern California
The 2023 numbers are in the graph, so the relevant numbers are there.

The last 3 points in the graph are the first three quarters of 2023. If you follow the link, you can put your cursor on each point and it will show you the financial period it represents.

They have not posted their official results for Q4 so those could not be published or analyzed yet.

So yeah, at least KCC's data seems contrary to the findings the group in the article is claiming. Other companies might not though...
It does appear gross profit margins are up quite a bit, though. It doesn't say where the difference in operating cost is. It may be you have more insight into why that is or why it's more relevant to this discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bama75&80

gtgilbert

All-American
Aug 12, 2011
4,164
7,520
187
It does appear gross profit margins are up quite a bit, though. It doesn't say where the difference in operating cost is. It may be you have more insight into why that is or why it's more relevant to this discussion.
No their net profit margin in 2019 was 11.69 percent. Since then it's been 12.2 in 20, 9.3 in 21 and 9.6 in 22. Their profit per dollar in revenue is significantly lower than prepandemic.

It's relevant because the author and analyst implied they were keeping margins inflated, and that's simply not true.
 

NationalTitles18

Suspended
May 25, 2003
32,419
42,281
362
Mountainous Northern California
No their net profit margin in 2019 was 11.69 percent. Since then it's been 12.2 in 20, 9.3 in 21 and 9.6 in 22. Their profit per dollar in revenue is significantly lower than prepandemic.

It's relevant because the author and analyst implied they were keeping margins inflated, and that's simply not true.
I don't know the author's level of knowledge and this is certainly not my field...

That said, I wonder if this might be a case of a reporter misstating something they don't fully understand.

But it does appear that at least for the most recent reporting that actual profits (gross profits, operating income, and net income) are up quite a lot.

It does appear they are making good profits and those profits have increased significantly.

Do you think the author misstated what they meant to say or do you think there is no merit whatsoever to the central argument?
 

gtgilbert

All-American
Aug 12, 2011
4,164
7,520
187
I don't know the author's level of knowledge and this is certainly not my field...

That said, I wonder if this might be a case of a reporter misstating something they don't fully understand.

But it does appear that at least for the most recent reporting that actual profits (gross profits, operating income, and net income) are up quite a lot.

It does appear they are making good profits and those profits have increased significantly.

Do you think the author misstated what they meant to say or do you think there is no merit whatsoever to the central argument?
Actually profits in 2020 were 2.3B and in 22 were only 1.9B so income has decreased quite a bit since the pandemic

I don't know the author or the research firm, nor do they actually provide any meaningful data as an output so I can't judge Iif they are just not really knowledgeable on financial analysis or if they are intentionally misleading.

There certainly may be some companies who've been able to push margins higher post covid, but I work with a lot of large consumer products firms and that isn't really the case for most of them. The ones I know that have, have been able to do so because they made long term plays on Treasury management and commodity pricing that paid off.

You also have to consider that in highly inflationary environment like this, a sales increase of 5 percent or so isn't really an jncrease as that's all inflation dollars not real spend and not really an increase in unit volume.
 

Tidewater

FB|NS|NSNP Moderator
Staff member
Mar 15, 2003
24,834
19,230
337
Hooterville, Vir.
The steel tariffs haven't helped. The tariffs are good for producers - all 75k of them. But they're not good for steel users and end users, which are in the tens of millions.
When I took Macro-econ at the Capstone, they taught me, "Free trade wins all arguments, but protection wins all votes." The consumers who are harmed by high tariffs are harmed only a little and may not even be aware of the harm. The small number of people who benefit are very aware and care deeply.
 

Tidewater

FB|NS|NSNP Moderator
Staff member
Mar 15, 2003
24,834
19,230
337
Hooterville, Vir.
This is the kind of data points that hurt the Biden campaign's message.
Biden goes to Cook Out and Berger goes viral
Biden inflation cookout.png
Biden inflation cookout 2.png
Same item at the same store, three years apart. 28% increase.
I suppose it is possible that there may be some outrageous profit-taking in fast food, but it is not clear why their competitors do not forego the outrageous profits but earn normal profits while taking over market share.
 

JDCrimson

Hall of Fame
Feb 12, 2006
6,600
6,653
187
52
So the covid stimulus had to be sucked out our pockets by Corporate America through greedy price increases which begat the $10hr EE to now being the $15hr EE...
 

Bodhisattva

Hall of Fame
Aug 22, 2001
22,456
3,964
287
Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida
We pretty much knew this, but still...

Goodness, what a joke article from a dopey organization. It says right on Groundwork Collaborative’s website they want to increase the power of government at the expense of the private sector. Not much thinking going on in this "think" tank. Puke funnel indeed for those who like their logic subservient to their tribal leanings. I’m not sure what’s the bigger joke: that people have strong opinions on economics/markets/governmental actions and consequences when they don’t know anything about said subjects, or that their lack of knowledge on the subjects is somehow a badge of honor among the tribe. 🤷‍♂️

This is the kind of data points that hurt the Biden campaign's message.
Biden goes to Cook Out and Berger goes viral
View attachment 40354
View attachment 40356
Same item at the same store, three years apart. 28% increase.
I suppose it is possible that there may be some outrageous profit-taking in fast food, but it is not clear why their competitors do not forego the outrageous profits but earn normal profits while taking over market share.
It's always sadly amusing that so many blame businesses for rising prices, while ignoring the blatantly obvious culprit. When I worked for a national homebuilder, in the years leading up to the 2008 crash, one could easily see how government policies at the national and local levels were creating a bubble of catastrophic proportions. The federal government created artificially high demand, which put dangerously upward pressure on prices. Local governments (Maryland, in my case) implemented policies that forced prices even higher – density restrictions, increased onsite and offsite amenities, new impact fees*, etc. All these extra costs gets rolled into the cost of the house. And since we made X in profit, the higher the sales price the higher the profit (in dollars, not in percentage). So, who got blamed by the local governments and their bootlicks in the media for high housing costs (and, gasp, extra profits)? The builders, of course. So, then comes the affordable housing requirements. This only pushes the cost of market rate homes even higher. Congratulations. The house you want to buy is now many tens of thousands, if not $100,000+, more expensive than it should be. And as the crash is coming, the unintended (but very predictable) consequences of people having risky mortgages and homebuilders having too much inventory is going to set off earthquakes throughout the economy. TANSTAAFL.


*Most of these impact fees served no purpose other than to fill the coffers of city and county governments. Greedflation indeed! Idiots with political power can do damage that can destroy people's lives for years. But, the dopes from places like Groundwork Collaborative want more of this. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Bodhisattva

Hall of Fame
Aug 22, 2001
22,456
3,964
287
Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida
The steel tariffs haven't helped. The tariffs are good for producers - all 75k of them. But they're not good for steel users and end users, which are in the tens of millions.
When I took Macro-econ at the Capstone, they taught me, "Free trade wins all arguments, but protection wins all votes." The consumers who are harmed by high tariffs are harmed only a little and may not even be aware of the harm. The small number of people who benefit are very aware and care deeply.
It's funny. The GOP is traditionally free(ish) trade, and the Dems are generally protectionist. Trump has turned a lot of politics on its head, including adopting many left-populist policies. Protectionism is one of them. But, because what one tribe wants the other tribes opposes, the Dems blasted Trump’s raft of tariff policies. Not because they realized tariffs are almost always bad, but because … Go tribe! So, when Biden took office, the Dems reversed the protectionism? Ehh ……..
 

New Posts

|

Latest threads