Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_2247965477-scaled

How Lockheed's $7.9B stock buyback bonanza is paid for by you

The arms industry titan pockets billions a year in federal contracts then turns around and uses it to enrich its shareholders.

Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
google cta
google cta

The value of Lockheed Martin’s stock grew by 37 percent last year, representing an incredible financial gain for investors in the nation’s largest military contractor.

This spike was hardly the result of changing market conditions, however: the S&P 500 ended the year with growth of -20 percent. Instead, this growth came from stock buybacks. In 2022, the company bought back more of its own stock than in any other year in its history: $7.9 billion, equivalent to 12 percent of its sales income. 

According to Lockheed’s 2022 annual report, 73.5 percent of the company’s sales last year were to the U.S. government, most of which were for the Department of Defense. In other words, if these buybacks come proportionately from the different revenue streams of the company, U.S. taxpayers underwrote $5.8 billion in Lockheed buybacks. 

This is without including Foreign Military Sales, roughly another 19.2 percent of the total, which are sold to foreign governments through the U.S. government.

When contractors who receive most of their money from government sales issue buybacks, it is ultimately taxpayer dollars being redirected towards shareholders’ pockets. Data from Lockheed Martin’s annual reports suggests that company outdid itself in 2022, offering its investors a record level of taxpayer-backed buybacks equivalent to the prior four years combined.
N4pntvynume1nqv3_tajmejv25eoa5g_vytu8mkeldpt3pt3d1u0wgug68ahqwispfrppjrrzknkzlt7turv9p3yizkioczp3tm7tkdnsphswwhnxjcwak3g9balpeslhms1mcaqrjudesfpaferq78

This isn’t a new phenomenon. Since 1982, U.S. corporations have been able to buy back their own stock in order to raise the value of the remaining stock, an investor payout similar to dividends but with a smaller tax bill. The rapid growth of stock buybacks since then has attracted its fair share of critics, who argue that the money spent on them would be better used on research and development or wages, rather than enriching shareholders.

The Pentagon directs about half of its $858 billion budget to private contractors, making it a prime target for companies looking to get their hands on government cash. Indeed, Lockheed isn’t the only weapons company issuing massive stock buybacks: 2021 was a record year for the sector in this regard. But Lockheed’s latest numbers dwarf their competitors. Their 2022 buybacks were worth more than those of Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, BAE Systems, and L3Harris combined. 

Boeing, formerly a major spender on repurchases, suspended their buyback program in 2020 in response to scandals surrounding their commercial airliners.

Lockheed Martin has increasingly focused on buybacks to create high returns for investors over the last several years. Corporate leadership authorized $5 billion in new buybacks in the fall of 2021, and another $14 billion in the fall of 2022. The remaining funds not already spent this year are “expected to be utilized over a three-year period,” according to a Lockheed press release.

During last year’s Q4 Earnings Call, Lockheed Martin CEO Jim Taiclet bragged that the company’s buybacks and dividends “delivered approximately $11 billion to shareholders in 2022,” and that they “expect to complete our remaining repurchase authorization of $10 billion over the next few years.” Executives made it a priority “to increase cash returns to our shareholders with a significant increase to share repurchases.” 

Overall, Taiclet said, the company “end[ed] the year with a total shareholder return of 40 percent.” With the majority of Lockheed’s revenue coming from the government, what Taiclet is really saying is that U.S. taxpayers helped to pay the company’s shareholders. 

Bolstered by new sales related to the War in Ukraine, the company seems committed to continuing the use of buybacks. In their most recent release of financial information, Taiclet said that they “are confident in our return to growth and ability to reward our shareholders over the long run with reliable free cash flow per share expansion and cash deployment.” 

The $5.8 billion share of Lockheed Martin’s buybacks enabled by government funding serves little purpose beyond further enriching investors, yet it costs more than nine times what recently-proposed cuts to food stamps would have raised each year, in their original form.

The military itself has raised alarms about its contractors’ use of buybacks. A report from the Pentagon earlier this year found that, when comparing the 2010s to the 2000s, “defense contractors chose to reduce the overall share of revenue spent on [Independent Research & Development] and Capital Expenditures… while significantly increasing the share of revenue paid to shareholders in cash dividends and share buybacks by 73 percent.” 

These problems have not gone unnoticed. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has been particularly vocal about the harmful implications of these trends. “As major defense contractors brag to their shareholders about increasing dividends and buybacks, they can’t expect taxpayers to further underwrite their profits.” But until reforms are made which limit buybacks or reform the contracting process, the companies involved will continue to expect exactly that.

Lockheed Martin did not respond to a request by RS for comment for this story.


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

(gopixa/shutterstock)
google cta
Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
Von Der Leyen Zelensky
Top image credit: paparazzza / Shutterstock.com
The collapse of Europe's Ukraine policy has sparked a blame game

They are calling fast-track Ukraine EU bid 'nonsense.' So why dangle it?

Europe

Trying to accelerate Ukraine’s entry into the European Union makes sense as part of the U.S.-sponsored efforts to end the war with Russia. But there are two big obstacles to this happening by 2027: Ukraine isn’t ready, and Europe can’t afford it.

As part of ongoing talks to end the war in Ukraine, the Trump administration had advanced the idea that Ukraine be admitted into the European Union by 2027. On the surface, this appears a practical compromise, given Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s concession that Ukraine will drop its aspiration to join NATO.

keep readingShow less
World War II Normandy
Top photo credit: American soldiers march a group of German prisoners along a beachhead in Northern France after which they will be sent to England. June 6, 1944. (U.S. Army Signal Corps Photographic Files/public domain)

Marines know we don't kill unarmed survivors for a reason

Military Industrial Complex

As the Trump Administration continues to kill so-called Venezuelan "narco terrorists" through "non-international armed conflict" (whatever that means), it is clear it is doing so without Congressional authorization and in defiance of international law.

Perhaps worse, through these actions, the administration is demonstrating wanton disregard for centuries of Western battlefield precedent, customs, and traditions that righteously seek to preserve as many lives during war as possible.

keep readingShow less
Amanda Sloat
Top photo credit: Amanda Sloat, with Department of State, in 2015. (VOA photo/Wikimedia Commons)

Pranked Biden official exposes lie that Ukraine war was inevitable

Europe

When it comes to the Ukraine war, there have long been two realities. One is propagated by former Biden administration officials in speeches and media interviews, in which Russian President Vladimir Putin’s illegal invasion had nothing to do with NATO’s U.S.-led expansion into the now shattered country, there was nothing that could have been done to prevent what was an inevitable imperialist land-grab, and that negotiations once the war started to try to end the killing were not only impossible, but morally wrong.

Then there is the other, polar opposite reality that occasionally slips through when officials think few people are listening, and which was recently summed up by former Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Europe at the National Security Council Amanda Sloat, in an interview with Russian pranksters whom she believed were aides to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.