3 ms·
Better than nothing, but it should be illegal, as it was until 1982 when neoliberals started deregulating finance. Big corporations spend tens of billions to ma
by pauljurczak 4y ago
Better than nothing, but it should be illegal, as it was until 1982 when neoliberals started deregulating finance. Big corporations spend tens of billions to manipulate the stock market, but when the going gets tough, they run to mommy crying to bail them out.
- Cwizard 4y agoWhy should it be illegal? (Serious question)
- pauljurczak 4y agoA random reason, not necessarily the most important one, is that a company buying its own stock is the ultimate insider trading. Market fairness has left through the nearest open window...
- benj111 4y agoWhy illegal? Is making a profit 'manipulating' the stock market? How does it differ to paying dividends? Or should they also be illegal? I agree it should really be taxed at a similar level to dividends though.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> it should be illegal, as it was until 1982 While stock buybacks were catalyzed by "the adoption of SEC Rule 10b-18 in 1982," prior to which "companies avoided repurchasing shares because of the risks of violating the anti-manipulative provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934," stock buybacks were commonplace going back to before the War [1]. [1] https://www.cfainstitute.org/-/media/documents/book/rf-lit-review/2022/rflr-stock-buybacks.pdf https://www.cfainstitute.org/-/media/documents/book/rf-lit-r... page 7
- missedthecue 4y agoShare buybacks were legal before then. That's how Buffett bought a tiny textile mill called Berkshire Hathaway in the 1960s. The difference was that they mainly took place in the form of tender offers back then rather than market repurchases.