4 ms·

> but I think share buybacks are another major reason for the disproportionate rise of US markets. US corporations have bought more of their own shares than any

• perl4ever 7y ago
  Share buybacks aren't necessarily done on a regular schedule nor do they imply the same sort of public commitment or are required to be paid for out of profits. Saying they are just a more tax efficient alternative to dividends assumes that they are exactly substituted for dividend payments in amount and timing, but I don't think that's the case in practice. Something that I've wondered is, if a company has excess capital why not, instead of acquisitions, dividends, or buybacks, just buy an S&P 500 index fund?
  • mrep 7y ago
    > Something that I've wondered is, if a company has excess capital why not, instead of acquisitions, dividends, or buybacks, just buy an S&P 500 index fund? Because that would tie the value and riskiness of your company to the sp 500 which is inefficient as that effectively forces anyone who wants to invest in your company to also invest in the sp 500. Not everyone has a risk/reward preference that matches the sp 500. It's better to instead return profits to investors and let them reinvest into whatever they want.
    • perl4ever 7y ago
      Not everyone owning a given company has a risk/reward preference that matches some hare-brained acquisition. However, the S&P 500 is approximately the same as the stock market, and so I think it's arguable that "everyone" together does have about the same risk/reward preference. Buybacks, even if better in the best of all possible worlds, make it difficult to change your mind, whereas an index fund could simply be sold, rather than having to issue more stock. It seems like a lower-friction alternative to accomplish something economically similar.
  • cbanek 7y ago
    Sometimes they do take the profits and put them into investments, or how they hold cash reserves for future purchases, payroll, etc. for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braeburn_Capital https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braeburn_Capital
  • arbitrary_name 7y ago
    Dividends are sticky: once the level is set, they are expected in perpetuity and any reduction is assumed to be indicative of poor performance or future performance. Buybacks have the benefit of not having that expectation attached.
    • perl4ever 7y ago
      Sure, that's what I was alluding to, but I think it's obvious that the difference is not necessarily beneficial. People make commitments for valid reasons, and they are usually worth something.
• fauigerzigerk 7y ago
  >Share buybacks are just a more efficient way of returning profits back to investors than dividends True, but the effect on share prices is very different. If you compare the S&P 500 with an index (a price index, not a total return index) comprising companies that use dividends instead of buybacks, you get a distorted picture of relative economic success. >Most companies are demand limited which limits their investment opportunities. How do you reconcile lack of demand with the historically tight labor market? >If a companies best investment opportunity gives a return of a measly 2% a year when the market is doing 7%, than you should not do it and instead return that money to investors so they can divert their investments to companies with higher returns. I do agree with that in principle (provided you account for risk as well), but I'm starting to wonder if there is a self reinforcing element at play that's driving buybacks right now. Shareholders see stock markets rise. They demand buybacks based on your (fundamentally sound) logic. Management feels pressured to buy back stocks, which makes markets rise even more...
  • Gibbon1 7y ago
    > How do you reconcile lack of demand with the historically tight labor market? Look at employment to population ratio, labor share of income, birth rates. Not historically tight.
    • fauigerzigerk 7y ago
      True, good point.