Comment by yieldcrv
4 days ago
shares exist as conduits to return money to shareholders via dividends
buybacks are more efficient but only pump the shares on the open market, by nature, some shareholders are essentially getting money returned, but primarily its to reduce scarcity so all shareholders just have higher value shares for utility at their own discretion
No, all shareholders are essentially getting money returned.
"Higher value shares for utility at their own discretion" = negotiable securities = money.
This conspiratorial "some" is...not a good sign that you're well calibrated enough to tell me what long-dead companies Palantir is or is not like. I'll take my critiques of Palantir from people who understand what they're talking about.
“some” was actually included predicting you would just as be pedantic if I didn't mention the people that sold their shares during the buyback by just happenstance of selling at the same time
you are trying to make a point about me but provided none, while agreeing with what I said
that was…. predictable
Ah, okay. I understand where the "some" was coming from now. Leaving my earlier comment as-is to keep the chain coherent, but I now see that it wasn't conspiratorial.
Let me see if I can put my point a little more politely. There is basically no economic difference between dividends and buybacks, apart from some tax technicalities. When people talk as if dividends are good and pure whereas buybacks are somehow evil and decoupled from reality, it is almost always drivel.
You seem to have a notion that shares, in their untampered state, should be "conduits to return money to shareholders via dividends". But it really makes ~no economic difference whether the shareholders get direct returns via dividends, versus indirect returns via buybacks.
And I really don't understand what connection you see between this minute distinction, and your point about Palantir being a "nearly sovereign entity". Perhaps you could spell that out.
2 replies →