Comment by fn-mote
10 hours ago
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.
That's not a valid example of things that can happen in the market. You're making up ridiculously unrealistic numbers and clearly don't understand the basics of how the process works.
Share buybacks are always executed at the current market price. The company doesn't offer a higher price. A large buyback order might move the share price up a tiny bit but triggering an increase from $1 to $2 is impossible for any company traded on a major US exchange.
4 replies →
Buybacks in theory do not cause share price to rise like your example though. Investors already price in that cash will be either reinvested at a high rate or returned to shareholders. You are reducing share count of a company that now has less cash which nets out in share price.
1 reply →
This is a nonsensical example because companies aren't just barrels of cash, stock buybacks do not occur above market price, and companies never spend themselves broke to buyback shares because that would be retarded. You might try learning how corporate finance actually works before posting like you are an expert on it.
3 replies →
It's perfectly ok not to understand corporate finance. It's a boring (and nightmarishly complicated) subject.
NOTE: The commenter is explicitly basing his/her argument on his/her lack of understanding. That's what brought the subject into discussion.
He understands it quite a bit better than the person he is replying to
Hard to say for sure. I don't know either of them.
But I'm not casting aspersions on the commenter. I'm responding directly to his implication that if he doesn't understand X then X is false. That's not a thing.
1 reply →