It should be so for the sharing of profits

The political and intellectual debates are rarely decided on the beautiful field of the arguments. In a crisis, they are never. It is a horrible person: Ms. need. Is that the history reason.

It should be so for the sharing of profits. "A third party for the investment, a third for dividends", a third party for the employees, asked the President of the Republic in principle. A highly questionable principle to many points of view: is it the policy to decide Are sectoral situations not too dissimilar A principle from the realities, since the concrete figures in France of the share of the profits distributed to the employees as an incentive is only about 6. Can dream of 33...

That is important. Madam need will also prevail there, at least it should. Companies, these last two decades, preferred shareholder. The ultrabénéficiaire of capitalism from before the crisis had two sources of enrichment: the redemption of their own actions by firms and their dividends. The first method, highly criticized, had assumed considerable proportions: in 2007, the CAC 40 companies have purchased 19 billion euros of their actions, half of what they were distributed in dividends (38 billion). In 2008, correction: they purchased more to 11 billion of their titles, but they have compensated by paying 43 billion of dividends. In total, despite the crisis that began in August 2007, the shareholders of ACC have been again ultrachoyés in 2008. It is true that these large companies believed, before September 2008 and the fall of Lehman, that they safely cross the storm...

This is no longer the case today. All or most severely affected. All or almost will see their profit back (an average of 38, according to Barclays Capital). All or almost, especially, face a major challenge of financing from banks. Then why not keep all the cash that they have at hand, that they generate themselves Is this not salutary to distribute no dividend in 2009 Just keep to what should be the priority of priorities: investment, i.e. the benefits of tomorrow. The sharing rule that Nicolas Sarkozy should have asked this year should be: 94 for investment, 0 for dividends, 6 for the employees.

Companies still hesitate because they fear the markets. General Electric, who is a master in international management, opened the debate by announcing cut two-thirds its third-quarter 2008 dividend and thus keep $ 9 billion in its coffers. The market obviously little appreciated and title declined because this decision has been interpreted as evidence of great difficulties come from credits subsidiary GE Capital. But GE did! And all industrial enterprises have no financial subsidiary! Is it allowed to also recall that, theoretically, dividend payment not enriches not shareholder since it decreases as euro for euro, the value of his company

Why Société Générale does not end his gesture of reduction and provides again 700 million over 2 billion of profits Ditto for the BNP, Credit Agricole and other banks who, in addition, receive loans from the State. While stock market prices are completely determined by the macroeconomics, it already has difficulty understanding that a Vivendi, because he was not concerned by the crisis, further enhancing its dividend of 10 cents this year. What it is But why a Total EDF, Air Liquide, Danone, Sanofi-Aventis want pay stable dividends

Industrialists have spent years complaining of the dictatorship of the market and its "short-termism". They have the opportunity to put on what is their long-term interest. The crisis worsens, it will them hit hardest as they strive to say. Their courage would bring much better dividends in the future.