Live data from Hacker News

IBM Stops Buybacks to Pay for Red Hat

investorplace.com

11–20 of 192 posts

Re: IBM Stops Buybacks to Pay for Red Hat

#11
post #4

Can someone explain why Red Hat is so valuable? Why would IBM put such a big bet?

Becuase of kubernetes. The platform of platforms. Kubernetes is the andriod to amazon iphone (in analogy). It is the only way to get out of cloud vendor lock in.

IBM is mainly a consultancy business, so they basically back integrated with the cloud os - kubernetes, or more specifically in this case - open shift.

The only issue here is that are around 23 or more certified kubernetes distors, so this might have been an expansive price to pay.

Re: IBM Stops Buybacks to Pay for Red Hat

#12

What laypeople need to realize is the following relation: Low federal funds rates allow companies to acquire huge amounts of debt very cheaply. Huge amounts of cheap debt allow companies to buy lots of stock, driving up prices. Stock prices inflated in such a way are not supported by fundamentals and so the downside risk greatly increases. Once the downside eventually materializes, markets drop violently. At first, t…

CPI includes rent which has gone up 2.7% per year averaged out since 2008 [0]. I wouldn't call that extreme. As for stocks, the S&P 500 P/E ratio is about 20 which is pretty much average for recent times [1].

[0]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DTENRX1A020NBEA

[1]: https://www.macrotrends.net/2577/sp-500-pe-ratio-price-to-ea...

Re: IBM Stops Buybacks to Pay for Red Hat

#14

The big risk is that IBM drags Redhat down to their level. This wouldn't be unusual, most takeovers fail to deliver shareholder value.

There is nothing to drag. A single server distro is becoming irrelevant as the unit of computation resources is the kubernetes cluster. I.e. all the app see is a set of kubernetes nodes, it does not really care what server disto you are running on.

Re: IBM Stops Buybacks to Pay for Red Hat

#15

What laypeople need to realize is the following relation: Low federal funds rates allow companies to acquire huge amounts of debt very cheaply. Huge amounts of cheap debt allow companies to buy lots of stock, driving up prices. Stock prices inflated in such a way are not supported by fundamentals and so the downside risk greatly increases. Once the downside eventually materializes, markets drop violently. At first, t…

It's hard for me to see why this dynamic would happen. What specific federal funds rate would make stock prices "supported by fundamentals" rather than "inflated", and why in your view can't the Fed just set that rate to avoid these problems?

Because a mix of globalization, technological financialization, and perverse incentives.

The markets have become increasingly global to the point that there is never a shortage of investors or investment capital. However, profitable, low or no risk investment opportunities do not grow on trees nearly as plentifully. Due to an overabundant supply of investors with a high demand to seek profitable low or no risk investment opportunities to park their wealth for growth via interest, and a much lower supply of profitable low or no risk investment opportunities—the interest rates to park your wealth must fall. And they have fallen quite steadily and predictably since their peak in the 1970s and 1980s... which nicely corresponds with the technological globalization and financialization of markets and marks their triumph over inflation (why inflation has not returned).

There is another reason for inflated asset prices besides cheap interest rates. Many assets are also priced to interest rates in an inverted fashion (for bonds, that is exactly the formula how they work and are priced). Just before the recession, stock buy-backs were no longer prohibited and since the great recession and the ultra low interest rate environment coupled with stock buy-backs, stocks have become a slightly more risky alternative to bonds and stock prices became just as inflated as bonds and have more or less stayed that way. You see, when you have a combination of all those factors coupled with the ability to buy back your stock, stocks are now able to compete almost directly with bonds for investors and stock prices inflate accordingly.

Because globalization, technology, and financialization happen much faster than markets and regulation can respond, and there are vested interests by investors (corporations, banks, Wall Street, etc.) to maintain the status quo via lobbying the politicians and regulators... the situation is unlikely to resolve itself via some self-regulating efficient market hypothesis.

Re: IBM Stops Buybacks to Pay for Red Hat

#16

What laypeople need to realize is the following relation: Low federal funds rates allow companies to acquire huge amounts of debt very cheaply. Huge amounts of cheap debt allow companies to buy lots of stock, driving up prices. Stock prices inflated in such a way are not supported by fundamentals and so the downside risk greatly increases. Once the downside eventually materializes, markets drop violently. At first, t…

It's hard for me to see why this dynamic would happen. What specific federal funds rate would make stock prices "supported by fundamentals" rather than "inflated", and why in your view can't the Fed just set that rate to avoid these problems?

> What specific federal funds rate would make stock prices "supported by fundamentals" rather than "inflated"

Well, zero is kind of a special number. Anything significantly different from zero should create a very different dynamic (with a hyperbolic reaction of the market the closer you get to zero).

That said, the stock market is never "supported by fundamentals" like the GP wants. Also, just because the interest rate is low, it does not mean that all companies are under water. Besides, I don't think anybody already knows the consequences of zero interest rates well enough to say with certainty that it's bad, but it's different from non-zero.

Re: IBM Stops Buybacks to Pay for Red Hat

#18

The big risk is that IBM drags Redhat down to their level. This wouldn't be unusual, most takeovers fail to deliver shareholder value.

There is nothing to drag. A single server distro is becoming irrelevant as the unit of computation resources is the kubernetes cluster. I.e. all the app see is a set of kubernetes nodes, it does not really care what server disto you are running on.

You do realize that those containers eventually need to be hosted somewhere, right? That somewhere is a server running an operating system. Containers are more a threat to virtual machine OSes than ones that host containers.

Re: IBM Stops Buybacks to Pay for Red Hat

#19

The big risk is that IBM drags Redhat down to their level. This wouldn't be unusual, most takeovers fail to deliver shareholder value.

There is nothing to drag. A single server distro is becoming irrelevant as the unit of computation resources is the kubernetes cluster. I.e. all the app see is a set of kubernetes nodes, it does not really care what server disto you are running on.

Red Hat is more than its products. The engineering talent at the company is astounding. I remain skeptical that they will remain for long though.

Re: IBM Stops Buybacks to Pay for Red Hat

#20

What laypeople need to realize is the following relation: Low federal funds rates allow companies to acquire huge amounts of debt very cheaply. Huge amounts of cheap debt allow companies to buy lots of stock, driving up prices. Stock prices inflated in such a way are not supported by fundamentals and so the downside risk greatly increases. Once the downside eventually materializes, markets drop violently. At first, t…

Are there buyback limits? Is it possible that company could buy all of it's stock?
Post reply on HN