French companies benefiting from state aid can't buy back shares

Post by CPLX » Mon, Mar 30, 2020, 11:19 AM UTC

gwd wrote: post #77

pjc50 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the first sentence but not the second; buybacks aren't "stealing from the market", they're returning money to the market but "stealing" from the revenue service . The tax treatment of dividends is less favourable. Executive total compensation is a wider problem, but shareholders seems generally satisfied with letting boards have almost as much of the company money as they want. Only people who really tak…

> The tax treatment of dividends is less favourable. They changed this a while back, didn't they? "Qualified dividends, on the other hand, are taxed at the capital gains rates, which are lower." [1] AFAIK the only tax advantage of dividends now is that you're forced to pay tax every year, rather than being able to pay tax only once when you actually sell your shares. (Do let me know if there's something I'm missing.)…

Post by imtringued » Mon, Mar 30, 2020, 11:22 AM UTC

mooshmoosh wrote: post #37

sfj wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why aren't we letting them fail instead of allowing these idiots to stay in business? Say American Airlines went bust. It's debtors would get its planes and other company assets, who would then in turn sell them to other airlines. A new airline might form to take its place, which would probably be a little more prudent than the last one.

I definitely agree. Companies should be allowed to go bust more! Especially if they're in trouble because they didn't maintain a safety net of capital. Unfortunately companies are often able to convince politicians, and the public that they're critically important, or too big to fail. They say that many other companies depend on them, and if they're allowed to go bust they will be "the next lehman brothers" with many…

Post by arethuza » Mon, Mar 30, 2020, 11:22 AM UTC

btrask wrote: post #40

Why aren't shareholders on the hook for bailing out their own companies? They have the financial incentive to protect their own investments. Why is bailing out a compay different from "investing" in it? What is an investment besides a non-emergency bailout? Edit: Why don't companies raise money by issuing more stock? Isn't that what the stock matket is for?

Post by bradleyjg » Mon, Mar 30, 2020, 11:25 AM UTC

hnarn wrote: post #62

bradleyjg wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that were so, then the accounting profession has failed at its core responsibility. But I don’t think it has, the information is there for investors to see. If some investors choose to obsessively focus on a single metric, well—-a fool and his money are soon parted.

I may be a bit daft here but in what way is this related to the work of accountants? The number isn't wrong, there's just context that's easily missed. The "buyer beware" logic can be used for a lot of things ad infinitum, you could argue the same thing about a company straight up lying about certain sales possibilities etc. but that would legally be fraud, so it's not black and white.

Post by adwn » Mon, Mar 30, 2020, 11:27 AM UTC

sametmax wrote: post #79

smt88 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Communism and capitalism do share a weakness: corruption of those with power. One difference between them is that a dangerous concentration of power is inherent to communism. It's intentional. In capitalism, it's an unintended consequence that can be mitigated by regulations (anti-trust laws, subsidies to startups, etc.)

> One difference between them is that a dangerous concentration of power is inherent to communism You mean in opposition to a system that promotes the concentration of capital, which is power ? Or do you think non capitalist systems don't have laws and a group of dictators must be at the top?