July, 11 2024, 07:16am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Olivia Alperstein, olivia@ips-dc.org
Carter Dougherty, carter@ourfinancialsecurity.org
New Report Shows Need for Buyback Restrictions in CHIPS Program
Guardrails would protect taxpayers dollars from wasteful stock buybacks and excessive CEO pay and keep focus on long-term innovation.
Computer chip companies currently in line for $30 billion in subsidies spent more than $41 billion on stock buybacks between 2019 and 2023, underscoring the need for stringent rules that ensure new subsidies improve the semiconductor manufacturing base and do not merely enrich shareholders and CEOs, according to a new study.
The report from the Institute for Policy Studies and the Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund, Maximizing the Benefits of the CHIPS Program, analyzes the distribution of the $39 billion in subsidies for semiconductor manufacturing under the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act. It also examines the Biden administration’s initial steps to stop taxpayer money from going to share buybacks by granting preferential treatment to firms that agree to forgo all stock buybacks for five years.
While welcome, this policy is incomplete. With such strong pressure from Wall Street to use stock buybacks to boost share prices, the federal government must lay down a firm line against potential abuse. The authors urge the administration to put real teeth into that effort by inserting explicit restrictions on all stock buyback spending in the final CHIPS subsidy contracts.
“The Biden administration has taken important steps to use the power of the public purse to encourage corporations to focus on creating good jobs and long-term value rather than the all-too-common fixation on inflating CEO paychecks,” said Sarah Anderson, the report’s lead author and the Global Economy Program Director at the Institute for Policy Studies. “Strong stock buyback restrictions in CHIPS contracts would reinforce this goal, since every dollar spent on buybacks is a dollar not spent on innovation for long-term competitiveness – the main goal of the law – or employee child care subsidies, worker wages and training.”
The new report is the first to provide detailed data on stock buybacks and CEO pay at the first 11 corporations to sign preliminary CHIPS agreements with the Department of Commerce. These companies are in line for subsidies totaling nearly $30 billion.
The analysis focuses on the $39 billion in subsidies for semiconductor manufacturing in the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act, and specifically on the Biden administration’s decision to grant preferential treatment in the awarding of these subsidies to firms that agree to forgo all stock buybacks for five years.
The report commends Biden administration officials for their strong commitment to ensuring that public investments benefit working families and the broader economy instead of further enriching corporate executives and wealthy shareholders. The authors urge the administration to put real teeth into that effort by inserting explicit restrictions on all stock buyback spending in the final CHIPS subsidy contracts.
Key findings:
- The 11 companies with preliminary CHIPS agreements spent more than $41 billion on stock buybacks between 2019 and 2023 — enough to provide 300,000 employees a $27,541 bonus every year for five years.
- Intel had the largest outlay. With the $30.2 billion the firm spent on buybacks from 2019 to 2023, the chipmaker could’ve given each of their 124,800 employees a $48,000 bonus every year. Intel is in line to receive as much as $8.5 billion in CHIPS subsidies – the most of any firm.
- None of the companies in line for these subsidies have publicly committed to suspend existing share repurchase plans (which currently authorize $14.3 billion in buyback spending) or to refrain from adopting new plans during the grant period.
- CEOs with preliminary CHIPS agreements are sitting on company stock holdings worth more than $2.7 billion ($306 million on average), reflecting the enormous potential for executives to cash in on future buyback-related bumps in share prices.
- Among the 8 CHIPS grantees for which pay data are available, CEO compensation averaged $13.6 million in 2023 and the average gap between CEO and median worker pay stood at 200 to 1.
- Micron Technology’s CEO was the highest paid, with total compensation valued at $25.3 million in 2023. Half of Micron employees made less than $54,570.
- Microchip Technology’s median wage was the lowest, at just $51,229. The firm’s CEO made nearly $12.3 million last year amidst declining revenue that has led to two unpaid worker furloughs this year.
In a July 1 letter to Commerce Secretary Raimondo, Senator Elizabeth Warren and House members Pramila Jayapal, Sean Casten, and Bill Foster noted that the federal agency has the “statutory authority to fully ban CHIPS grant recipients from engaging in stock buybacks as a condition of award.” The lawmakers expressed concern that unless the administration asserts this authority, they will “leave the door open for semiconductor companies to take millions or even billions in CHIPS grants, move some money around, and then engage in more stock buybacks.”
“Congress passed the CHIPS and Science Act and President Biden signed it into law to bolster semiconductor manufacturing in the U.S. – not to waste public dollars in stock buybacks that make rich executives richer and exacerbate economic and racial inequality,” said Natalia Renta, Senior Policy Counsel for Corporate Governance and Power at Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund. “Commerce Secretary Raimondo must finalize CHIPS contracts with strong stock buyback restrictions to make sure public money serves the public good, as intended, not narrow, private interests.”
Read the full report: https://ips-dc.org/report-maximizing-the-benefits-of-the-chips-program
The Institute for Policy Studies, a multi-issue research center, has been conducting path-breaking research on executive compensation for nearly three decades. IPS’s Inequality.org website provides an online portal into all things related to the income and wealth gaps that divide us, in the United States and throughout the world. Sign up for our weekly newsletter at: Inequality.org/subscribe.
Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund is a nonpartisan, nonprofit coalition of more than 200 civil rights, community-based, consumer, labor, small business, and other groups. Formed in the wake of the 2008 crisis, AFREF works to lay the foundation for a strong, stable, and ethical financial system – one that serves the economy and the nation as a whole and contributes to shared prosperity for all families and communities.
Institute for Policy Studies turns Ideas into Action for Peace, Justice and the Environment. We strengthen social movements with independent research, visionary thinking, and links to the grassroots, scholars and elected officials. I.F. Stone once called IPS "the think tank for the rest of us." Since 1963, we have empowered people to build healthy and democratic societies in communities, the US, and the world. Click here to learn more, or read the latest below.
LATEST NEWS
Amazon Won't Display Tariff Costs After Trump Whines to Bezos
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said all companies should be "displaying how much tariffs contribute to the total price of products."
Apr 29, 2025
Amazon said Tuesday that it would not display tariff costs next to products on its website after U.S. President Donald Trump called the e-commerce giant's billionaire founder, Jeff Bezos, to complain about the reported plan.
Citing an unnamed person familiar with Amazon's supposed plan, Punchbowl Newsreported that "the shopping site will display how much of an item's cost is derived from tariffs—right next to the product's total listed price."
Many Amazon products come from China. While U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent claimed Sunday that "there is a path" to a tariff deal with the Chinese government, Trump has recently caused global economic alarm by hitting the country with a 145% tax and imposing a 10% minimum for other nations.
According toCNN, which spoke with two senior White House officials on Tuesday, Trump's call to Bezos "came shortly after one of the senior officials phoned the president to inform him of the story" from Punchbowl.
"Of course he was pissed," one officials said of Trump. "Why should a multibillion-dollar company pass off costs to consumers?"
Asked about how the call with Bezos went, Trump told reporters: "Great. Jeff Bezos was very nice. He was terrific. He solved the problem very quickly, and he did the right thing, and he's a good guy."
Earlier Tuesday, during a briefing, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called Amazon's reported plan "a hostile and political act," and said that "this is another reason why Americans should buy American."
Leavitt also asked why Amazon didn't have such displays during the Biden administration and held up a printed version of a 2021 Reutersreport about the company's "compliance with the Chinese government edict" to stop allowing customer ratings and reviews in China, allegedly prompted by negative feedback left on a collection President Xi Jinping's speeches and writings.
Asked whether Bezos is "still a Trump supporter," Leavitt said that she "will not speak to" the president's relationship with him.
As CNBCdetailed Tuesday:
Less than two hours after the press briefing, an Amazon spokesperson told CNBC that the company was only ever considering listing tariff charges on some products for Amazon Haul, its budget-focused shopping section.
"The team that runs our ultra low cost Amazon Haul store has considered listing import charges on certain products," the spokesperson said. "This was never a consideration for the main Amazon site and nothing has been implemented on any Amazon properties."
But in a follow-up statement an hour after that one, the spokesperson clarified that the plan to show tariff surcharges was "never approved" and is "not going to happen."
In response to Bloomberg also reporting on Amazon's claim that tariff displays were never under consideration for the company's main site, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick wrote on social media Tuesday, "Good move."
Before Amazon publicly killed any plans for showing consumers the costs from Trump's import taxes, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on the chamber's floor Tuesday that companies should be "displaying how much tariffs contribute to the total price of products."
"I urge more companies, particularly national retailers that compete with Amazon, to adopt this practice. If Amazon has the courage to display why prices are going up because of tariffs, so should all of our other national retailers who compete with them. And I am calling on them to do it now," he said.
Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) on Tuesday framed the whole incident as an example of how "Trump has created a government by and for the billionaires," declaring: "If anyone ever doubted that Trump, and Musk, and Bezos, and the billionaires are all [on] one team, just look at what happened at Amazon today. Bezos immediately caved and walked back a plan to tell Americans how much Trump's tariffs are costing them."
Casar also claimed Bezos wants "big tax cuts and sweatheart deals," and pointed to Amazon's Prime Video paying $40 million to license a documentary about the life of First Lady Melania Trump. In addition to the film agreement, Bezos has come under fire for Amazon's $1 million donation to the president's inauguration fund.
As the owner of
The Washington Post, Bezos—the world's second-richest person, after Trump adviser Elon Musk—also faced intense criticism for blocking the newspaper's planned endorsement of the president's 2024 Democratic challenger, Kamala Harris, and demanding its opinion page advocate for "personal liberties and free markets."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Medicare for All, Says Sanders, Would Show American People 'Government Is Listening to Them'
"The goal of the current administration and their billionaire buddies is to pile on endless cuts," said one nurse and union leader. "Even on our hardest days, we won't stop fighting for Medicare for All."
Apr 29, 2025
On Tuesday, Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Democratic Reps. Pramila Jayapal of Washington and Debbie Dingell of Michigan reintroduced the Medicare for All Act, re-upping the legislative quest to enact a single-payer healthcare system even as the bill faces little chance of advancing in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives or Senate.
Hundreds of nurses, healthcare providers, and workers from across the country joined the lawmakers for a press conference focused on the bill's reintroduction in front of the Capitol on Tuesday.
"We have the radical idea of putting healthcare dollars into healthcare, not into profiteering or bureaucracy," said Sanders during the press conference. "A simple healthcare system, which is what we are talking about, substantially reduces administrative costs, but it would also make life a lot easier, not just for patients, but for nurses" and other healthcare providers, he continued.
"So let us stand together," Sanders told the crowd. "Let us do what the American people want and let us transform this country. And when we pass Medicare for All, it's not only about improving healthcare for all our people—it's doing something else. It's telling the American people that, finally, the American government is listening to them."
Under Medicare for All, the government would pay for all healthcare services, including dental, vision, prescription drugs, and other care.
"It is a travesty when 85 million people are uninsured or underinsured and millions more are drowning in medical debt in the richest nation on Earth," said Jayapal in a statement on Tuesday.
In 2020, a study in the peer-reviewed medical journal The Lancet found that a single-payer program like Medicare for All would save Americans more than $450 billion and would likely prevent 68,000 deaths every year. That same year, the Congressional Budget Office found that a single-payer system that resembles Medicare for All would yield some $650 billion in savings in 2030.
Members of National Nurses United (NNU), the nation's largest union of registered nurses, were also at the press conference on Tuesday.
In a statement, the group highlighted that the bill comes at a critical time, given GOP-led threats to programs like Medicaid.
"The goal of the current administration and their billionaire buddies is to pile on endless cuts and attacks so that we become too demoralized and overwhelmed to move forward," said Bonnie Castillo, registered nurse and executive director of NNU. "Even on our hardest days, we won't stop fighting for Medicare for All."
Per Sanders' office, the legislation has 104 co-sponsors in the House and 16 in the Senate, which is an increase from the previous Congress.
A poll from Gallup released in 2023 found that 7 in 10 Democrats support a government-run healthcare system. The poll also found that across the political spectrum, 57% of respondents believe the government should ensure all people have healthcare coverage.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Advocates Warn GOP Just Unveiled 'Most Dangerous Higher Ed Bill in US History'
"This is the boldest attempt we've seen in recent history to segregate higher education along racial and class lines," said the Debt Collective.
Apr 29, 2025
At a markup session held by a U.S. House committee on the Republican Party's recently unveiled higher education reform bill Tuesday, one Democratic lawmaker had a succinct description for the legislation.
"This bill is a dream-killer," said Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) of the so-called Student Success and Taxpayer Savings Plan, which was introduced by Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) as part of an effort to find $330 billion in education programs to offset President Donald Trump's tax plan.
Tasked with helping to make $4.5 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans possible, Walberg on Monday proposed changes to the Pell Grant program, which has provided financial aid to more than 80 million low-income students since it began in 1972. The bill would allocate more funding to the program but would also reduce the number of students who are eligible for the grants, changing the definition of a "full-time" student to one enrolled in at least 30 semester hours each academic year—up from 12 hours. Students would be cut off from the financial assistance entirely if they are enrolled less than six hours per semester.
David Baime, senior vice president for government relations for the American Association of Community Colleges, suggested the legislation doesn't account for the realities faced by many students who benefit from Pell Grants.
"These students are almost always working a substantial number of hours each week and often have family responsibilities. Pell Grants help them meet the cost of tuition and required fees," Baime toldInside Higher Ed. "We commend the committee for identifying substantial additional resources to help finance Pell, but it should not come at the cost of undermining the ability of low-income working students to enroll at a community college."
The draft bill would also end subsidized loans, which don't accrue interest when a student is still in college and gives borrowers a six-month grace period after graduation, starting in July 2026. More than 30 million borrowers currently have subsidized loans.
The proposal would also reduce the number of student loan repayment options from those offered by the Biden administration to just two, with borrowers given the option for a fixed monthly amount paid over a certain period of time or an income-based plan.
At the markup session on Tuesday, Bonamici pointed to her own experience of paying for college and law school "through a combination of grants and loans and work study and food stamps," and noted that her Republican colleagues on the committee also "graduated from college."
"And more than half of them have gone on to earn advanced degrees," said the congresswoman. "And yet those same individuals who benefited so much from accessing higher education are supporting a bill that will prevent others from doing so."
“In a time when higher ed is being attacked, this bill is another assault,” @RepBonamici calls out committee leaders for wanting to gut financial aid.
“With this bill, they will be taking that opportunity [of higher ed] away from others. This bill is a dream killer.” pic.twitter.com/UjTYvnOEKv
— Student Borrower Protection Center (@theSBPC) April 29, 2025
Democrats on the committee also spoke out against provisions that would cap loans a student can take out for graduate programs at $100,000; the Grad PLUS program has allowed students to borrow up to the cost of attendance.
The Parent PLUS program, which has been found to provide crucial help to Black families accessing higher education, would also be restricted.
"Black students, brown students, first-generation college students, first-generation Americans, will not have access to college," said Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.).
“We cannot take away access to loans, and not replace it with anything else, not make the system better. We know the outcome here—Black, brown, and poor students will not figure it out. Instead, only elite students from the 1% will continue to access education.”@RepSummerLee🙇 pic.twitter.com/oGbRH154Ed
— Student Borrower Protection Center (@theSBPC) April 29, 2025
As the Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) warned last week, eliminating the Grad PLUS program without also lowering the cost of graduate programs would "subject millions of future borrowers to an unregulated and predatory private student loan market, while doing little to reduce overall student debt and the need to borrow."
Aissa Canchola Bañez, policy director for SBPC, told The Hill that the draft bill is "an attack on students and working families with student loan debt."
"We've seen an array of really problematic proposals that are on the table for congressional Republicans," Canchola Bañez said. "Many of these would cause massive spikes for families with monthly student loan payments."
With the proposal, which Republicans hope to pass through reconciliation with a simple majority, the party would be "restructuring higher education for the worse," said the Debt Collective.
"It's the most dangerous higher ed bill in U.S. history," said the student loan borrowers union. "It strips the Department of Education of virtually every authority to cancel student debt. Eliminates every repayment program. Abolishes subsidized loans."
"This is the boldest attempt we've seen in recent history to segregate higher education along racial and class lines," the group added. "We have to push back."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular