3 ms·
Sure, maybe, but one fact doesn't really relate to the other. The fact remains that they just spent $10B on share buybacks, and they are now laying off thousand
by endofcapital 8y ago
Sure, maybe, but one fact doesn't really relate to the other. The fact remains that they just spent $10B on share buybacks, and they are now laying off thousands and closing a few factories because they want to save $6B.
Even if they waited a few more years, the optics are just really bad. Not that optics seem to matter like they used to, most companies just shamelessly do this now.
- wutbrodo 8y ago> they are now laying off thousands and closing a few factories because they want to save $6B. This is the part that I'm saying isn't necessarily true. The fact that they will save $6B by shutting down these factories doesn't imply that saving $6B was the reason they did it. If you're saying that the stock buyback demonstrates that they clearly had the money to keep these factories open, even in the absence of an economic case for doing so.... Well sure, but if we're talking about better contributions to global utility they could have made than the stock buyback, subsidizing unproductive factories is a horrible use of this money, compared to donating to homeless initiatives or malaria nets or any of a billion other things.
- RhysU 8y agoI could spend $10B retiring shared and also trim an underperforming $6B investment. They can both happen without it being a sinister equality gap event.