Live data from Hacker News

Buybacks at $46B a Month Dwarf Everything in U.S. Market (2015)

bloomberg.com

21–30 of 156 posts

Re: Buybacks at $46B a Month Dwarf Everything in U.S. Market (2015)

#21

Buybacks are a terrible waste of shareholders' money and is akin to putting lipstick on a pig. The only reason why IBM has had relatively decent numbers is because of the financial engineering associated with buybacks. Unfortunately, it all blew up with the current CEO who has to deal with the fact that revenues are dropping like a rock and can't be out-engineered anymore.

Warren Buffet is on the phone for you ... He says when the intrinsic value of a company is greater then the price implied by the stock, buybacks benefit the shareholders .. And when the intrinsic value is less than the price implied by the market price of the stock buybacks are bad for shareholders.

Re: Buybacks at $46B a Month Dwarf Everything in U.S. Market (2015)

#22
post #14
post #6

Remember, in a perfectly liquid market without taxes, a company which executes a share buyback will have no change in its stock price, since the shared redeemed will be exactly balanced by a reduction in the value of the company; and this is also exactly equivalent to distributing profits in the form of a dividend. On the other hand, when the rate of taxation on capital gains is lower than the rate of taxation on cor…

I don't think this is accurate. When a company buys back shares, the shares are retired increasing the ownership percentage of the remaining shareholders. It is basically the opposite of issuing shares and diluting existing shareholders.

What's not accurate?

Re: Buybacks at $46B a Month Dwarf Everything in U.S. Market (2015)

#23
post #5
post #3

For everyone wondering why the large cash balances on company books, this is why. But it also means that if companies are spending their 'rainy day' money that it's truly raining. The theory that the tech cycle is hitting its 8-year downturn cycle just got more substantiated.

Does it really count as "spending rainy-day money" if they're spending their cash reserves on buybacks? It seems more to me like they just have literally nowhere else to spend the money other than bringing all those dividends back into the company.

This is right. Though it's not that there is nowhere to spend the money, it's that the company believes there is nowhere that would generate a better return than just buying back part of the company and the money earns nothing in the bank due to low interest rates. Apple has spent a truly staggering amount of money on buybacks, money which it could have, for instance, used to buy Tesla, Spotify, etc. Even after investing in major new product areas (watch, cars), they still have more cash than they will ever realistically need.

Re: Buybacks at $46B a Month Dwarf Everything in U.S. Market (2015)

#24
post #13
post #6

Remember, in a perfectly liquid market without taxes, a company which executes a share buyback will have no change in its stock price, since the shared redeemed will be exactly balanced by a reduction in the value of the company; and this is also exactly equivalent to distributing profits in the form of a dividend. On the other hand, when the rate of taxation on capital gains is lower than the rate of taxation on cor…

> a company which executes a share buyback will have no change in its stock price... this is also exactly equivalent to distributing profits in the form of a dividend This is false (conditionally). Most valuations look something like: earnings x growth + cash. If you have cash that you cannot reinvest at the same ROI that you have been growing at, you can increase shareholder value by removing the cash element, since…

[deleted]

Re: Buybacks at $46B a Month Dwarf Everything in U.S. Market (2015)

#25
So many companies with so much profit they literally can't find any way to invest it to generate return. It might make you wonder why wages are stagnant or what the argument for outsourcing to lower labor costs is really about, if you were the sort of person to bother wondering about such things.

Re: Buybacks at $46B a Month Dwarf Everything in U.S. Market (2015)

#26
post #2

Apple buys back a large amount of stock because that is the only way they can really get any return out of their stock ( http://247wallst.com/technology-3/2016/03/01/why-apple-may-s... ). Unfortunately due to the law of large numbers, for them to grow at even a 15-20%, would require billions and billions of dollars in revenue increases. Seems like the most prudent course of action for them and their investors. Albeit…

That's not the law of large numbers.

Re: Buybacks at $46B a Month Dwarf Everything in U.S. Market (2015)

#27

So many companies with so much profit they literally can't find any way to invest it to generate return. It might make you wonder why wages are stagnant or what the argument for outsourcing to lower labor costs is really about, if you were the sort of person to bother wondering about such things.

You shouldn't wonder. Businesses need demand for something before they start making it. That doesn't need to be demand for something that exists, but if there were money out there for goods not yet made there would be more investment towards them.*

Since that is not the case, you can presume there is not money out there not yet tapped. Which, considering economic trends in recent decades towards wealth concentration in the same capitalist class who has nothing to spend money on except making more money nowadays, that should be no surprise.

When the consumers are getting poorer, their demand is dropping, not increasing, so there is no reason to ever try increasing supply. Just use monetary loopholes to profit more instead.

* : all relative to risk. There are of course things you could take large risks on and see incredible returns if you succeed, but you cannot predict or even guarantee success on them (gene therapy, new silicon fab tech, nuclear energy, new solar panel tech, better battery tech, AI, and way, way more). When the board is awash in cash from a perpetual money machine, and you could easily just do stock buybacks to make shareholders happy, you go with the no risk easy route to appease shareholders than taking the risk.

Re: Buybacks at $46B a Month Dwarf Everything in U.S. Market (2015)

#28
post #7

This is a consequence of tax law and greed. There are three ways a company can pay for their capital - dividends, interest, and stock buybacks. The first is taxable. Only the last makes options given to executives valuable. The US should tax buybacks and interest as it does dividends. That would put a stop to this.

All of them are taxable. Interest is taxable income (to the lender), though it's also a prime opportunity for tax arbitrage so the lenders have a strong tendency to be incorporated in low tax jurisdictions.

And buybacks effectively get taxed as capital gains (because they result in higher share prices), but not until the shareholders sell their shares, and of course then it's at the capital gains rate.

So what you're really getting at is that dividends and capital gains should be taxed at the same rate.

And if you really want to promote dividends, let reinvested dividends defer taxes like buybacks do until the shares purchased with the dividends are sold, even if they're reinvested in a different company. Then you'll see investors demanding dividends because the tax advantage of buybacks would be gone and dividends would have the advantage of allowing investors to choose what to invest the new money in.

Re: Buybacks at $46B a Month Dwarf Everything in U.S. Market (2015)

#29

So many companies with so much profit they literally can't find any way to invest it to generate return. It might make you wonder why wages are stagnant or what the argument for outsourcing to lower labor costs is really about, if you were the sort of person to bother wondering about such things.

I no longer wonder about such things. The simple fact of the matter is that the system is designed to work against wage earners. It focuses on the benefit of our corporate overlords.

For example, I use to work for a company as a wage earner. I left, moving my 401k into a self-directed IRA. Since the market has been bad lately, I remained in cash. I want to put that money somewhere else: property.

I would love to buy a building downtown (which is theoretically possible). I would convert the top floor, about 5k sq/ft, into a co-work office that charges $10/day. The first floor I would rent out to someone, like a grocer. Sadly, the system works against this dream.

First, I can't use the building directly if I purchased it with the IRA. I, as the IRA holder, cannot utilize any properties within the account directly. There goes the co-work. I can't put sweat equity in because that is an illegal contribution. There goes fixing the building without loosing money on labor. I can't directly take the checks and deposit them in the IRA. The law requires that all checks go directly to IRA holding company (who will take a percentage). Finally, I have to get a special IRA account that holds property. Trick is that there is almost no one that does that since they don't make a lot of money. The few that do, take a big chunk.

So I, as a lowly wage earner, can't tap my largest asset directly. I can only use my money to feed the pockets of others via stocks and bonds.

As the Simpson's sung, "It's the American way!"

Re: Buybacks at $46B a Month Dwarf Everything in U.S. Market (2015)

#30
post #14
post #6

Remember, in a perfectly liquid market without taxes, a company which executes a share buyback will have no change in its stock price, since the shared redeemed will be exactly balanced by a reduction in the value of the company; and this is also exactly equivalent to distributing profits in the form of a dividend. On the other hand, when the rate of taxation on capital gains is lower than the rate of taxation on cor…

I don't think this is accurate. When a company buys back shares, the shares are retired increasing the ownership percentage of the remaining shareholders. It is basically the opposite of issuing shares and diluting existing shareholders.

Well in theory, if your shares are diluted /2 but the company's capital is x2, and all that capital is used efficiently, you have not lost anything either. Half slice of twice the pie.
Post reply on HN