3 ms·
Probably only the latter. My point was that executives (share sellers) benefit and it creates potentially toxic incentives.
by concinds 3y ago
Probably only the latter. My point was that executives (share sellers) benefit and it creates potentially toxic incentives.
- kjreact 3y agoExecutives are always incentivized to increase share value; that’s their job. Note: it’s the board of directors that issues new shares not executives. Executives can sit on the board, but the two are not the same. Executives are actually appointed by the board. The reason stock buybacks are viewed somewhat negatively is because it’s a lazy way to increase share value. Preferably executives would use the money to come up with new products/services to increase revenues. But if we’re talking about huge mega corporations, who already spend a lot of money on R&D, capex and/or acquisitions, then using some additional cash flow on buybacks makes sense. In Intel’s case, the buyback merits some discussion because it is implied that government subsidies are being used to buyback shares which is not the intention of the subsidy. Edit: IMO, I don’t think Intel underinvested, I believe they invested in many failed ventures and under their past and current leadership they are not able to grow the company in any meaningful way.
- robertlagrant 3y ago> My point was that executives (share sellers) benefit and it creates potentially toxic incentives. This seems like a good incentive. Executives of course don't have to have any shares, although they probably will, but that's not "toxic". I know that toxic is now the blandest word in the language due to overuse, but even given that this seems distortional.