4 ms·

Wouldn't that friend on who's voting the stock that company holds in itself? Is it the CEO? The board? The chairman? Or are the stocks cancelled from the total

• s1artibartfast 4y ago
  I can't parse all of your question. What friend? To answer what I think you are asking, the buyback shares are usually destroyed. It isn't like the CEO gets to vote with them instead of shareholders. In fact, they company does not destroy the shares, and holds on to them for whatever reason, they do not get to vote with them. those are called "treasury stock". Apple is a classic case. Around 2010, the company had 26 billion shares outstanding. They've spent the last decade buying them back, and now have about 16 billion shares. This contributes significantly to the increase in stock price. The portion of the company 1 share represents is 60% larger today than it was in 2010 because there are fewer of them
• realityking 4y ago
  Bought back shares are either retired or held in the company’s treasury stock. Either way, there’s no voting right for these shares.
  • salawat 4y ago
    Again, this decreases actionable accountability to the external world. This should make it clear why stock buybacks would be preferred. Fewer people with standing to sue if they don't agree with management's direction.
    • s1artibartfast 4y ago
      so more shares is more accountable? I'm not sure how you get that more shares means more owners. Doesn't really seem like the limiting factor.