[A]fter the market broke in early 2000, the stock was trading below its cash value... I don't remember the exact details of the buyback at TheStreet.com but we

[A]fter the market broke in early 2000, the stock was trading below its cash value... I don't remember the exact details of the buyback at TheStreet.com but we started buying the stock and it kept going down. We kept buying it. But we were losing money on each buyback because we were overpaying for our own stock as it kept going down. If you're buying a dollar bill for 90 cents, and someone offers you a dollar bill for 80 cents, you didn't lose money. I disagree with this post. If TSCM was trading at less than net cash, a buyback meant that they were getting paid to own more of it. That's an incredible deal. Also, they did something that would gave the business a temporarily negative market value (i.e. cash plus business is worth less than cash alone)--and they thus should have invested more cash in the business? That doesn't make sense. Either the stock market was right, TSCM was worth liquidation value, and the buyback was a way to gradually liquidate the company... or the market was wrong, the TSCM business was worth more than the stock's market price, and buying back the stock was a great move.