/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.18648758]

tell me why we shouldn't ban stock buybacks

literally dividends are better for individual investors and society

I'm the biggest capitalist in the world but buybacks are stupid as they only help corporate boards and stifle innovation and what could be R&D and/or pay raises for employees

[Anonymous No.18648819]

>>18648758
The sweat and grime under his ballsack must taste like heaven.

[Anonymous No.18648829]

>>18648819
get help

[Anonymous No.18649160]

>>18648758
agreed, capitalism is like any game, there most be rules, otherwise we live in double ended dildo liberterian "paradise" but in the end its national socialists along ethnic lines that is the final solution.

Leave each culture to their own development and do not interfere with them.

"The Prime Directive is not just a set of rules; it is a philosophy… and a very correct one. History has proven again and again that whenever mankind interferes with a less developed civilization, no matter how well intentioned that interference may be, the results are invariably disastrous."
– Jean-Luc Picard, 2364

[Anonymous No.18649174]

>>18649160
based

[Gary No.18649219]

>>18648819
Based
>>18648829
Faggot

[Anonymous No.18649235]

>>18649219
kill yourself your parents are ashamed of you

[Anonymous No.18649403]

>>18648758
this is a woman

[Anonymous No.18649716]

>>18648758
>literally dividends are better for individual investors and society
Substantiate this claim.
Economically, stock buybacks just avoid the reduction of the share price that dividends force. Practically, this forces shareholders to realize capital gains that are taxed during dividend payments, instead of giving the shareholders the ability to choose when they realize their capital gains (which can be at a time that is more beneficial to the individual investor than the company's dividend schedule).
>they only help corporate boards and stifle innovation and what could be R&D and/or pay raises for employees
Buybacks don't "only help corporate boards", they help all shareholders. Same argument applies to dividends. As an investor, you trust that the company will return its excess value to you when they cannot find profitable reinvestments in their own company. Buybacks and dividends both achieve this, although buybacks do it in a more tax-efficient manner. Dividends are just seen more favorably because historically that's how boomers chose their investments.

[Anonymous No.18649803]

>>18648758
yer a hue op. make up your mind

[Anonymous No.18650128]

>>18649716
dont corps just take fed hand outs and buyback their own stock, with tax payer, (your) money.

[Anonymous No.18650153]

>>18650128
low iq
back to >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.18650205]

>>18649716
Nah they just take out 1% debt from the fed and buy back stock with it. Not reinvest earnings. Debt financed. Long term utterly negative as that capital isn’t invested in actual growth type capex to get the E part of PE up but rather gets the shares outstanding down to juice the price. Financial manipulation to look like progress.

Also a stealth form of compensating employees via RSUs etc but thats neither here nor there

[Anonymous No.18650272]

>>18648758
Nothing wrong with buybacks itself, it all depends on why you are doing it. If you are using profit to fortify your company against stock market crashes or hostile takeover, then I see nothing against that. But it gets shadier if you are taking out loans to make a few people richer or to get round dividend taxes.

[Anonymous No.18650377]

>>18650128
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that was passed by the legislative branch and signed into law by the executive branch, lowered the tax rates for corporations. The corporations have to use this money that they do not pay in taxes "to act in what they believe to be the interest of the business corporate entity." Some determined redelivering these excess funds as value to the shareholder through corporate buybacks was the best use. Corporations have liabilities to their shareholders, not to the general public.
>>18650205
This is what the representatives of the American people voted for. If you don't like it, vote differently next time. If you have problems with companies not reinvesting all available capital, you should be anti-dividend then as well. You should keep in mind that reinvestment of capital can be more wasteful than returning that value to the shareholders. This is why dividends and buybacks exist. If an investment will never pay a return, then it's speculation. You should try to understand that there is no economic difference between dividends and corporate buybacks.
>Also a stealth form of compensating employees via RSUs etc but thats neither here nor there
It would be irresponsible for a corporation to not find the most efficient manner to reduce costs. RSU as compensation is a tax-efficient manner of compensating employees. As a shareholder, I prefer that the companies I invest in work to give me the best return possible.

[Anonymous No.18650464]

>>18649716
companies are shit at when they decide to do buybacks though

dividends might be associate with boomers but at least they make sense

[Anonymous No.18650542]

>>18649160
based and Picardpilled

[Anonymous No.18650649]

>>18650377
again I'm a huge fan of capitalism and I'll only ever vote for Republicans in my life:

but don't you see how the general populace will take this and run with it:

"hey we got a huge tax cut and instead of having it trickle down to our workers in the form of more benefits, higher wages, etc we LITERALLY have NO IDEA what to do with it so we'll buy our own stock lmao"

you might think you're big braining it rn but 80% of Americans don't agree with you and unless you want unrealized capital gains to start getting taxed I would adjust fire for society's sake

[Anonymous No.18650817]

>>18650649
You're concerned with how things "should" be, and I'm just concerned with how things are based on current laws and incentives. I'll repeat myself. Corporations have liabilities to their shareholders, not to the general public. This includes their own employees. If they don't consider paying their employees more a good investment, they won't do it. Enriching corporations will only serve to enrich themselves and their shareholders. It's very naive to give money to corporations and hope that they somehow help the general public in a roundabout way. They are not incentivized to help the general public. The mistake was cutting taxes for corporations, not failing to limit buybacks. If you cut the tax for corporations and limit buybacks, they'll find a different way to provide value for themselves and shareholders that may not benefit the general public (increase dividends maybe?).

[Anonymous No.18650821]

Think we’ll get more Trumpbucks or an unemployment expansion?
I got $1200 and am getting an extra $600 a week from unemployment.

[Anonymous No.18650840]

>>18648758
Who the hell is "we", NEET?

[Anonymous No.18650843]

>>18650821
Oh fuck I thought I was making a new thread lol

[Anonymous No.18650896]

>>18650821
>>18650843
>tfw someone on unemployement is making the same as what I"m making waging from home

fuck me I need some juicy divvies

[Anonymous No.18650977]

>>18650464
Are dividends a boomer investment? Boomers seem to me to be the generation who started us on the short term, stock-flipping speculation culture we have today. Dividends strike me as more old school. Like pre-Silent Generation old.

[Anonymous No.18650998]

>>18650896
So you know, when someone makes that kind of money on unemployment it really means that they work a job that makes more than that.

t. Chicago pipefitter.

[Anonymous No.18651008]

>>18650977
that's fair

>>18650817
also by your logic why can't companies buy crazy call options on their stock with billions of dollars

like some crazy strike calls that create huge unusual activity and makes others want to buy and inflate their stock price?

[Anonymous No.18651275]

>>18650817
which just brings us back to national socialism IMO, I am more of /poltard than a /biztard so I am biased.

[Anonymous No.18651607]

>>18651008
>also by your logic why can't companies buy crazy call options on their stock with billions of dollars
I would assume a company trading derivatives on itself is illegal due to insider trading. Also it would be very irresponsible from a risk-adjusted return point of view. Corporate buybacks are an operation to reduce outstanding shares.
>>18651275
?
This has nothing to do with political ideologies. We're talking about operations available to corporations to give back value to their shareholders. You don't have to inject political ideologies into every conversation.

[Anonymous No.18652662]

>>18651607
I wasn't it was more a comment about the tard >>18650153 shitting on me

but i think political ideologies inform economic systems, which is what is being discussed here.

The definition of shareholders is pretty vague, the public if being sold something are shareholders, at least thats what my retarded biz degree was trying to teach. Regardless in the long run if your community and way of life is destroyed it doesn't matter if your a shareholder or not you holding a bag of money surrounded by a shit system. Ya this is biz tho, so ultimately.. How do we profit off of this?

[Anonymous No.18652700]

>>18648819
This gets funnier every time it's posted, just like my favorite Reddit memes

Upboated kind stranger!

[Anonymous No.18652740]

>>18648758
> I'm the biggest capitalist in the world!
> But corporate boards can't make too much money
> And we should regulate markets to fuel innovation!
My head hurts.

[Anonymous No.18652764]

>>18652740
>immoral libertarian cuck
my cock hurts

[Anonymous No.18652775]

>>18648758
Buyback value should be capped at dividend value. Not allowing buybacks ever would mean companies always dilute over time, but pegging buybacks to dividends means everyone benefits

[Anonymous No.18652801]

>>18649160
Jesus fucking christ, how retarded can you be? Read that quote again, and tell me it is pro-interfering with markets, no matter how well intentioned. What you all believe to be the evils of capitalism are the results of some absurd regulations established 10 years prior which disrupts market activity. Is that to say it should be a free for all with polluting, and safety violations? No, you be common fucking sensible about the regulations and keep them to shit like that. You don't forbid stock buy backs because it's some imagined evil. If a company wisely uses a buyback, it will benefit them and their investors will benefit. If they use it poorly, they will suffer as a result both on that front, and by losing out on investors in the aftermath. Where did all of you cucks come from?

[Anonymous No.18653010]

>>18648819
KEK

[Anonymous No.18653016]

>>18652801
nah, i think the shit regulations started way before 10 years prior. Im saying if we lived in a less shitty world the rules and regulations wouldn't be necessary. If we had trust and community a shared sense of values, people would just do less shitty things. I dont generally believe in top down anything. Play jew games win jew prizes. You fag nigger? Damn all the skin in the game nonsense technical shit, the skin in the game would be a connection to your community and wanting to not fuck it up.

[Anonymous No.18653305]

>>18653016
Oh no they did, it goes like this
> 'Crisis' emerges, education, housing, credit markets, take your pick
> Legislature rushes in and reactively regulates to insert their will on the market
> Because both acting reactively and not proactively, not to mention inserting your will always go great
> Short term 'crisis' solved by 3rd party action
> New found regulations spawn economic ripples 10 years later, fueling the next 'crisis'
Rinse n repeat

[Anonymous No.18653385]

>>18652801
Given that the absurd regulations were conceived by and passed on behalf of the winners of capitalism, for the sake of further expanding their wins at the expense of everyone else, it isn't unreasonable to consider this to be one of the evils of capitalism.

[Anonymous No.18653546]

>>18650998
The $600 Pandemic Unemployment Assistance doesn't depend on prior income.

[Anonymous No.18654853]

>>18648758
Literally braindead take. Economically, there are zero differences between buybacks and dividends, outside of tax considerations.

>dividends are better for individual investors and society
Why?

>stifle innovation and what could be R&D and/or pay raises for employees
Neanderthal take. If there isn't anything worth trying to develop, what should they do with their money? Pay employees? Why would they if they don't have to? Because it's the "right thing to do"? Why is it the right thing to do? Why isn't giving retained earnings back to stockholders the right thing to do?

Anyone supporting this either has no idea what buybacks are, don't understand how buybacks work, is completely retarded, or is actively trying to hurt shareholders.

[Anonymous No.18655066]

>>18650377
>You should try to understand that there is no economic difference between dividends and corporate buybacks
I have a dumb question: surely there is a difference between a company reinvesting in itself vs paying out to shareholders? I mean I'm not saying it's bad, it clearly worked for Amazon. Just wondering how you can equate the two.

[Anonymous No.18655273]

>>18655066
A buyback is not a company reinvesting in itself. A buyback is merely another way of paying out to shareholders. A company reinvesting itself would be investing in R&D or something like that.

[Anonymous No.18655376]

Ok ok ok. That all makes sense. But isn't the main difference that when a company buys its own shares, it's using its own extra money to prop up its stock on nothing? I mean just capital it has laying around vs growth?

[Anonymous No.18655406]

>>18655376
They can just increase their share prices by announcing a dividend. How would that not be propping up its stock price on nothing except capital?

[Anonymous No.18655524]

>>18655406
Ok, you got me. I'm just a comp sci nerd, still trying to learn finance.