Comment by triceratops
4 months ago
> all shareholders
That's the key phrase, they benefit all shareholders. Buybacks on the other hand only benefit the following shareholders:
1. those with regularly vesting stock options and stock grants - basically employees. For non-tech companies especially, this only means high-ranking employees
2. those who intend to sell - that is, soon-to-be-ex shareholders
3. those who borrow against their stock - typically high-net-worth individuals who own a lot of the stock
Stock buybacks are thus a non-egalitarian way to return profits. To reward all shareholders equally, pay dividends.
Can you make this argument more rigorous?
I’m just not following the connections here.
It seems like your assumption is that a stock buyback is a short term gain.
One of your arguments is that the strike price for options is set based on a certain amount of stock in circulation, and decreasing that amount will “artificially” raise the stock price, making the options more valuable. I agree that higher stock price benefits those with options, and I would even agree that it is possible that when those strike prices were valued, the valuation did not take into account the possible global change in the amount of stock (although a market would have included this valuation).
I suppose the other part of the argument could be that R&D is good for the stock in the long term in a way that stock buybacks are not… the buybacks pumping up the price of the stock before it is driven into the dirt by competitors who do invest in R&D.
There, I’ve done my best for your argument but I still don’t really believe that increased stock prices for everyone is not benefiting everyone more or less equally.
> It seems like your assumption is that a stock buyback is a short term gain.
My argument is a stock buyback isn't a gain for a long-term, buy-and-hold investor. Unless
a) they sell some of the stock or
b) it pays dividends
they don't see the benefit of a higher stock price or reduced share count.
Qualified dividends and long term capital gains are taxed at the same rate. So anyone who says "buybacks are more tax-advantaged" is leaving out the second part: "because you can borrow against a higher stock price without paying taxes". Since most (non-rich) people don't do that stock buybacks have the same tax (dis)advantage as dividends. If you know of a way to get tax-free money out of a higher stock price other than borrowing on margin, please tell me. I'd love to learn.
> decreasing that amount will “artificially” raise the stock price
It isn't "artificial". There are fewer shares in circulation/more demand for the shares. That legitimately translates into a higher price. But stock options and grants are generally given to employees and especially executives. So a reduced share count and higher share price is particularly good for them.
> One of your arguments is that the strike price for options is set based on a certain amount of stock in circulation
My argument was more that when employees are paid a significant portion of their compensation in stock they tend to sell much of it upon vest (sensibly) in order to diversify or even just to pay their bills. Ergo, being frequent sellers, they benefit from the higher stock price more than they would from regular dividend payments. A higher stock price directly translates into higher compensation. Wouldn't this be a powerful incentive for company management to prefer buybacks over dividends?
> I suppose the other part of the argument could be that R&D is good for the stock in the long term
I didn't say anything about R&D spending. A company should return as much profit to shareholders as it sees fit.
I was rebutting the common, I believe simple-minded, argument that buybacks and dividends are completely equivalent. Even though the company spends the same amount of money, I think they are different in some very significant ways.
I think I'm mostly agreeing. Anyway here's my story.
Buybacks can be good or bad for shareholders, depending on the buyback price.
Example. I take $1000 and securitize it as 1000 shares. The company sells the shares for $1 each. This is a no-fee closed fund, whatever. I'm the "CEO". I personally buy 1 share.
Anyway, one day the stock trades at $0.90 and the company buys back 500 shares at that price. (How $0.90? Maybe the largest shareholder was distressed and needed cash, maybe somebody didn't read the SEC filings. Maybe "the ticker tells the whole story" and the ticker told $0.90 for a few days. It doesn't matter.) Now the company holds $550 and has 500 shares outstanding. Each share owns $1.10 of USD. Expenses are zero. I kindly volunteer my services as CEO and sole employee.
Pretty soon the stock might trade around $1.10. (Why $1.10? wHo knows?) The people who sold for $0.90 might regret that decision now. Continuing shareholders make money if they sell now. Was this "good for shareholders"? Depends on which shareholder.
Now I (the CEO) decide the company will do a buyback. The company offers $2 a share. I sell my own share for $2. To make it simple, say the company buys back 275 shares at $2. Now it's broke. The remaining shares trade for ... whatever. Somewhere between $3 and $0? ($3 because growth rate!)
I personally doubled my investment. Anybody who sold at $2 also did well.
Buybacks can be good or bad for shareholders.
15 replies →
> they don't see the benefit of a higher stock price or reduced share count.
If they're continually investing/rebalancing then it benefits them the same way a dividend does, but with fewer tax consequences.
> My argument is a stock buyback isn't a gain for a long-term, buy-and-hold investor.
It's better for me as a long term investor because I can better control my tax liability. It also allows for long term growth without a tax drag until I'm ready to switch out of my accumulation phase.
If a buyback gives stockholders the choice of selling or holding, realizing the gain now or later, and a dividend does not, why not prefer the buyback?
1 reply →
[flagged]
[flagged]
2 replies →
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.
> Those who do not sell, get their reward in the proportion of their ownership of the company going up.
This is incorrect. If the company buys back say $100m worth of its stock, it's true that the individual shares remaining represent a larger fraction of the company, BUT the company itself is worth $100m less after the transaction (because it has spent that $100m on purchase of something that can't be added to the balance sheet - basically incinerated that money from company's point of view, similarly to how paying out dividends is "destroying" money). These two factors cancel out perfectly, and the book value per share remains unchanged.
That's only true if the company pays book value for the shares.
I'm upvoting because you're advancing the discussion for sure.
2 replies →
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 shareholders. Exiting shareholders tend to include hired management. Of course nobody really knows the valuation that well, so obviously there's a guessing game.
This is pretty hard to argue against for anybody who agrees that valuation is a thing at all.
> Buybacks create a tendency toward higher share prices, but only while they continue.
Buybacks increase the share price because you have a company that is worth (for sake of argument) the same as it was worth before, except now there are fewer shares available.
A fixed market cap divided by fewer shares equals a higher share price.
In the limit case imagine buying back all but 1 share. Now that 1 share represents the entire value of the company, so the share price would equal the market cap.
3 replies →
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.
That only works if the stock buyback increases the price permanently. Intel stock buybacks at $50 don't look so great now, but the dividends you got are still worth the same.
Buybacks of overpriced stocks also do not benefit investors.
> 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 company going up.
Which only matters if the company pays dividends, or the shareholders eventually sell.
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 tax on the money in between. If they buy back some stock, I have essentially fully reinvested my money to grow my share of ownership in that company, but I have not paid any tax on this, and will only have to do so at the end. As I get to grow compound interest on my money, I will come out much better in the long term.
1 reply →
The other tax-free way to benefit is to sell while your in the (fairly generous) 0% capital gains bracket
1 reply →
Actually no, they have the same benefits as a dividend except they don't create a forced tax liability.
Stock grants can actually include dividends.
Even if you don't sell or borrow against it you benefit because you don't have that tax liability, and the money you woulda paid in taxes can continue to be invested.
Can't group #2 sell 4% of their holdings, thereby remaining shareholders, and delivering to themselves the tax-advantaged equivalent of a 4% dividend?
Yes. This is correct. Share buybacks are financially equivalent to a dividend from the company's perspective, and slightly better from the shareholder's perspective because they can choose when to take the dividend and pay capital gains tax instead of income tax on it.
Qualified dividends (stock held more than 60 days) and long term capital gains are taxed at the same rate.
5 replies →
If I'm reading it right, group #2 plan to sell 100% of their holdings during times of heavy buybacks. I think they intend to benefit as much as possible from whatever price increase might be driven by the buyback demand.
> delivering to themselves the tax-advantaged equivalent of a 4% dividend?
Long-term gains and qualified dividends (shares held longer than 60 days) are taxed at the same rate. What's the tax advantage here?
That is US-specific tax policy, but many international companies are listed on US exchanges and purchased by international investors. As a Canadian, my retirement savings in my TFSA are subject to 15% taxes on dividends and 0% taxes on capital gains (for US-listed stocks).
The tax advantage of stock buybacks is that investors aren't forced to immediately realize gains. They have the freedom to time sales to minimize overall income tax liability, for example by harvesting losses in other investments in a future year.
2 replies →
What is your definition of "benefit"? Assuming a buyback increases share prices, why would shareholders in general be indifferent?
Because if I don't intend to sell right now, and the company is otherwise a healthy, going concern that can pay sustainable dividends, the actual share price is irrelevant to me. If anything, given my belief in the company, a lower share price is better. I can buy more shares!
But you now own a larger percentage of the company because you own the same number of a smaller total number of shares outstanding, so you benefit whether you are a seller or a holder. If you intend to buy more it is neutral because the price per share goes up, but each share represents proportionally more.
If you ever want to sell, getting in the limit nothing for the shares might matter, no? There are other things: for example, share based M&A or compensation or other investors with different preferences - no relevance or interaction?
2 replies →
Having been in the "don't intend to sell right now" situation for decades, the actual share price movements were always very relevant to me.
I'm confident I share that psychology with almost everyone.
3 replies →
This is simply untrue in every detail. All common stock is pari passu. A buyback of common benefits all common stock holders pro rata with their holdings. Similarly, vesting grants without buybacks harms the common holders by dilution. A buyback of the amount of vested is the least that is required to keep the common holders whole.
The person you're responding to's argument is incoherent and not worth engaging in. The crux of it is that long term shareholders aren't benefited by buybacks because share price doesn't matter to them because they will never sell. Somehow however, dividends are good for them because they will not reinvest them for some reason? It doesn't make any sense.
This is just nonsense. Anyone can sell the stock if they wish, there is no privilege for the high-net worth. Additionally, shareholders benefit from reduced share count because it increases their claim on future profits thereby increasing compounding.
You're mixing up points 2 and 3. Anyone can sell, but buybacks benefit mostly sellers.
Borrowing against stock is mostly something for HNW people.
> shareeholders benefit from reduced share count because it increases their claim on future profits
So...dividends? Or when they eventually sell? What if I never want to sell?
Buybacks are still better if you want to hold forever and don't care about share price. With a dividend distribution you must pay taxes and reinvest the diminished proceeds. You end up with a smaller share of the company than in the buyback scenario. Example:
A: Hold $10 of stock. Buyback of 1$ per share. You're left with $10 of stock. B: Hold $10 of stock. Dividend of 1$ per share. You're left with 9$ of stock and $1 cash - taxes payed. Once reinvested you have $9 + (1 * tax rate) in stock.
You're making two mistakes: One is thinking that dividends are magic money that do not cause share prices to fall in exact accordance with the distribution and the other is that buybacks lift the share price somehow (they do not, see Modigliani-Miller).
Actually, normal people can do the borrowing thing. It's not really as necessary since you have normal employment income but you can do it and it can work. If you continually add more principle to your pile-o-stock than your monthly spending the growth will outpace your interest and you won't accumulate an unbounded amount of leverage.
At least if your broker offers decent margin rates or you sell boxes.
Well, also, your 401k and IRAs are probably superior to this strategy and can't be used as collateral as they're protected in bankruptcy. So it's not worth it until you fill those up.
1 reply →