Live data from Hacker News

No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

steveblank.com

381–390 of 528 posts

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe some of these 2-brain cell executives should consider that their "buybacks" will be worthless when US throughput starts to be equally worthless compared to the rest of the world... Of course, I'm being a bit pejorative, they aren't thinking big picture at all, just concerned with what happens tomorrow not the day after... However, they are in part responsible for the nonsense happening at the moment wrt to Amer…

Oh they know. They just don't care.

I don't think they do know. Nor do I think most of the shareholders know. If they did they would know that they can make way more money with forward thinking and planning beyond a quarter. The lack of that is the clearest indication I can imagine that they do not know.

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Those who intend to re-invest all returns in to the stock Sell the stock then use the gains to buy the stock? I'm very confused by this. > without having to first pay tax for the dividend Long term capital gains and dividends are taxed at the same rate. The only tax-free way to benefit from a higher share price (that I know of) is to borrow against it. > get their reward in the proportion of their ownership of the…

The company has some money. They choose to return it to shareholders. There are two legal ways to do so: Buy back some stock, or issue a dividend. Now assume I am a long-term investor, who invested money into a company, and wants to keep all that money in the company, instead of taking money out. If the company pays a dividend, I can put the money they paid me back into the company, but I have to pay capital income t…

I'm not sure about this bit:

> As I get to grow compound interest on my money, I will come out much better in the long term.

You will pay the capital gains tax rate either way. Either when you buy 15% less additional shares, or when you sell them at the end and pay the 15% then.

If you start with 15% less and compound it, you still end with 15% less.

(15% is just an example)

You might be placing a bet that at some point in the future there will be a reduction the capital gains rate, but, as far as I can see, you are not earning more due to compounding.

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#383

> In the 20th century, U.S. companies put their excess profits into corporate research labs. Basic research in the U.S. was done in at Dupont, Bell Labs, IBM, AT&T, Xerox, Kodak, GE, et al. This changed in 1982, when the Securities and Exchange Commission ruled that it was legal for companies to buy their own stock (reducing the number of shares available to the public and inflating their stock price.) Very quickly B…

Not why it can’t be done so much as why it isn’t done. Share buybacks allow companies to reward executives directly as their compensation is tied to stock price. If we started not doing that, the priorities might shift, but those executives like things the way they are. Before Tim Cook Apple had never done a buyback - Jobs was always thinking Apple could do better with the money in R&D than paying off shareholders. W…

Share buybacks are are at least nominally a financially neutral exercise - it generally does not benefit either shareholders or executives.

They can however signal 'strength' in stock price by creating more demand and signalling to the market that the company itself which has 'insider information' believes the stock price is worth less than the price they're bought for.

It's a fair point about Jobs - but - Jobs was never sitting on more money than the economies of most nations.

Jobs Apple was a consumer product company, Tim Cook Apple is a Private Equity Operating Entity in a way. Their financial operations dictate as much about their valuation as anything else.

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Share buybacks allow companies to reward executives directly as their compensation is tied to stock price. To be fair share owners also like the stock price to go higher, they also like dividends (and higher dividends would tend to drive the stock price higher too), but an X% increase in share price caused by buybacks is favoured over an X% dividend because it isn’t immediately taxed.

Dividends actually directly lower the stock price. Keep an eye on your portfolio when your holdings go ex-div -- the price falls because it no longer includes that cashflow.

This doesn't sound correct. Giving out an expected dividend lowers a stock price since otherwise one could arbitrage it, but this is evidence that the dividend raised the price when it got priced in

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#385
post #340
post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He also didn’t seem to have an issue borrowing Unix, which obviously has a rich history of research and academia.

Indeed, however many people are too young to remember that he looked down into UNIX, as a bunch of greybeards without taste. "Why We Have to Make UNIX Invisible." https://www.usenix.org/blog/vault-steve-jobs-keynotes-1987-u... "That time I had Steve Jobs keynote at Unix Expo" > They said a Unix weenie was code for software engineers who hated what we were doing to Unix (the operating system we licensed)—putting a gra…

This isn't a Jobs story, but it is an Apple and UNIX story:

Terry Lambert and OSX's UNIX certification https://www.quora.com/What-goes-into-making-an-OS-to-be-Unix...

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#386
post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4. Those who intend to re-invest all returns in to the stock, who avoid a taxable event when their ownership of the company goes up without having to first pay tax for the dividend. A stock buyback rewards all stockholders equally . Those who sell, get their reward in cash. Those who do not sell, get their reward in the proportion of their ownership of the company going up.

There is supply and demand to consider. Buybacks create a tendency toward higher share prices, but only while they continue. That demand cuts off when the buybacks stop. If the buybacks are at a discount to whatever the stock turns out to have been worth at the time, then that benefits all the shareholders. That can be a great use of money for all shareholders. But buybacks at inflated prices benefit only exiting sha…

Buybacks do not necessarily create an increase in stock price. Economically no value has been created. Cash on a balance sheet has simply been exchanged for shares. The people selling their shares in the buyout get the "value" of the company at that moment. The remaining shareholders now own a larger percentage of a smaller company i.e. a company that no longer has the cash used for the buyout.

Markets tend to reward companies that use buybacks as there is a belief the buybacks are a demonstration of discipline by the management team. Conceptually COMPANIES SHOULD BUY BACK STOCK IF THEY DO NOT HAVE BETTER ROI PROJECTS IN THE PIPELINE. This frequently happens in mature industries.

As noted above, buybacks are another means to return cash to investors. Today, in the US, the tax rate on qualified dividends and long-term capital gains are equivalent for most shareholders. This has not always been the case. When tax rates for capital gains are lower than dividends, buybacks are a more efficient means to return capital to investors.

Buybacks also allow for more tax planning. When dividends are issued, the investors have to pay taxes on them at that time. Stock buybacks allow investors to choose when they want to pay taxes. They can sell into the buyback and pay taxes now or hold the stock and pay taxes at a later time.

Buybacks are can be part of normal corporate capitalization decisions - what is the appropriate debt to equity ratio for the company.

Finally, changing dividend levels has its own impact on stock price. If a company increases its dividend, them market expects it to remain increased. In this case the stock price goes up as investors expect more dividends in the future. When a company cuts its dividend (rare event), the stock price drops dramatically as the market punishes company not only for the reduced expectation of future dividends but also because companies only cut dividends when they are having severe problems. Some companines issue a special dividend related to a one-time event such as selling a division. The stock price does not do much in these events.

All of this is to say that stock buybacks are not why corporations reduced basic research investment. I was at GE watching the famous research centers getting cut. The bottom line was the research coming out of the centers was not creating a meaningful ROI. At one point the researchers went to the various GE businesses looking for projects where their expertise could add value - an internal consulting group. They gave up after a year as there was so little success. Corporate research centers are expensive. They need to earn their keep.

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe some of these 2-brain cell executives should consider that their "buybacks" will be worthless when US throughput starts to be equally worthless compared to the rest of the world... Of course, I'm being a bit pejorative, they aren't thinking big picture at all, just concerned with what happens tomorrow not the day after... However, they are in part responsible for the nonsense happening at the moment wrt to Amer…

It's a prisoner's dilemma, but with a large number of prisoners.

Tragedy of the commons

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#388

> In the 20th century, U.S. companies put their excess profits into corporate research labs. Basic research in the U.S. was done in at Dupont, Bell Labs, IBM, AT&T, Xerox, Kodak, GE, et al. This changed in 1982, when the Securities and Exchange Commission ruled that it was legal for companies to buy their own stock (reducing the number of shares available to the public and inflating their stock price.) Very quickly B…

I would agree the anti-monopoly action had far more to do with that.

Basically, if you you think you can leverage your R&D into maintaining your monopoly and extending it to other areas it makes sense if for nothing else to keep the smart people who might otherwise disrupt your monopoly connected to you.

But if you are going to get broken up, just take as much short term profits as soon as you can

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#389
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not why it can’t be done so much as why it isn’t done. Share buybacks allow companies to reward executives directly as their compensation is tied to stock price. If we started not doing that, the priorities might shift, but those executives like things the way they are. Before Tim Cook Apple had never done a buyback - Jobs was always thinking Apple could do better with the money in R&D than paying off shareholders. W…

Dumb maybe question: Why couldn’t the companies with excess profits just pay they employees more in salaries?

Different markets. Companies are created to allow investors to create profits selling something (things, services, etc). Companies compete with other companies to attract capital. Companies which offer higher expected returns for comparable levels of risk will attract more capital. This reflects supply and demand for capital.

Employees are part of a labor market. Supply and demand in the labor market drives compensation levels. When you have a rare skill that is perceived to be valuable, you can get higher compensation - e.g. Meta AI researchers getting $100M contracts or Juan Soto getting a $750M baseball contract.

As mentioned elsewhere, some companies give stock to employees. In my experience this is for one of two reasons. 1) Employee retention - stock grants tend to have multiyear vesting periods designed to keep the employee at the company. 2) Start up companies that do not have the cash to pay employees.

None of these explanations would lead to simply paying employees more with excess cash (unless the cash was created by a group of employees that you were trying to retain).

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#390
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dumb maybe question: Why couldn’t the companies with excess profits just pay they employees more in salaries?

You're thinking of companies as teams where employees are members, but c-staff just see their employees as expensive suppliers.

Have you ever been a c-staff? C-staff are employees as well. Usually more expensive employees. Well run companies are trying to figure out how to win in the marketplace. To do this they hire the employees they need to win. Investors do this with CEOs.

I agree that it is much more difficult for a CEO to get fired than a line employee as CEOs have significant influence in picking their boarda. However, the consequences to a company of replacing a CEO are generally more significant as well.

Post reply on HN