nyeah

14 ms·

271.
by nyeah 1y ago
Demand tends to push price up. Investors don't really know who's buying until later. But yes, of course it's a toy example. I should probably have made the buybacks drive the price from $1.10 to $1.20 or something, with a muc
272.
by nyeah 1y ago
[flagged]
273.
by nyeah 1y ago
Yes. Book value is just one metric for value, but let's keep using it. I could also say that paying less than book value is increasing the book value, so the company is worth more after the buyback. As you say, it depends on the purcha
274.
by nyeah 1y ago
That's only true if the company pays book value for the shares. I'm upvoting because you're advancing the discussion for sure.
275.
by nyeah 1y ago
Yes, it was a made-up example. I feel that was obvious. If your point [about share price jumping suddenly] was irrelevant, then maybe you shouldn't have mentioned it. How is this my problem? I see that you edited your previous comment
276.
by nyeah 1y ago
Buybacks are sort of pay-in-kind dividends, sure. Nobody really loves returning actual money to investors. It's contrary to nature.
277.
by nyeah 1y ago
Pardon my bluntness, but you apparently don't understand how the process works. I'm not claiming the price jumped from $1.10 to $2 without hitting any intermediate prices. That's your idea.
278.
by nyeah 1y ago
I think I'm mostly agreeing. Anyway here's my story. Buybacks can be good or bad for shareholders, depending on the buyback price. Example. I take $1000 and securitize it as 1000 shares. The company sells the shares for $1 each. T
279.
by nyeah 1y ago
I don't doubt your sincerity. But there's a big difference between believing something very sincerely and actually knowing whether it's true or not.
280.
by nyeah 1y ago
[flagged]
281.
by nyeah 1y ago
There is supply and demand to consider. Buybacks create a tendency toward higher share prices, but only while they continue. That demand cuts off when the buybacks stop. If the buybacks are at a discount to whatever the stock turns out to h
282.
by nyeah 1y ago
For one thing, buybacks aren't charged against profits. Compensation is.
283.
by nyeah 1y ago
Hard to say for sure. I don't know either of them. But I'm not casting aspersions on the commenter. I'm responding directly to his implication that if he doesn't understand X then X is false. That's not a thing.
284.
by nyeah 1y ago
If I'm reading it right, group #2 plan to sell 100% of their holdings during times of heavy buybacks. I think they intend to benefit as much as possible from whatever price increase might be driven by the buyback demand.
285.
by nyeah 1y ago
Right now, in the US, we've given them no reason. But that's not a law of nature. For example a country might have an industrial policy.
286.
by nyeah 1y ago
They could, but then they'd have to report lower profits by the same amount. I want to actually defend this though: Corporate profit is a very narrow measure, by design. It was never intended to capture how well the nation is doing.
287.
by nyeah 1y ago
I guess the point is that we can torture this until it appears to be a mind-bending paradox. Alternatively we might just remember the basics: "Even if you disagree very strongly, don't injure, imprison, or kill each other at will,
288.
by nyeah 1y ago
Sure, although non-governmental ledger systems have the most of the same underlying problems. They're not optimized for government control, but they enable it. Only one really big exception: I can refuse to use them.
289.
by nyeah 1y ago
Yes and no. If any bank really imposed a 3k Euro withdrawal limit, every rational* depositor would instantaneously pull 3k Euros out of that bank. In whatever form they could pull out fastest. (Newly-created "digital Euros" would
290.
by nyeah 1y ago
1. You can easily have a local payments system without creating a new digital currency. So it's not hard to make people wonder, in perfectly good faith, why those two distinct ideas are being bundled right now. 2. Before you portray d
291.
by nyeah 1y ago
I think a driver is the idea of a European payment system. Why this should be "digital Euros" I don't clearly understand. We don't have digital USD, and we have indigenous payment systems in the US.
292.
by nyeah 1y ago
This is interesting but how could we really determine the answer? It seems very difficult not to get pulled into my own opinions about how it "must work".
293.
by nyeah 1y ago
Ok, thanks. But I was calling attention to a point in the previous comment that makes it difficult to see a kind of "dualism" between idealized current sources to idealized voltage sources. Idealized current or voltage sources don
294.
by nyeah 1y ago
"Of course, good voltage sources vary their resistance just like good current sources vary their voltage. " Did you mean to say "good voltage sources vary their current just like good current sources vary their voltage"?
295.
by nyeah 1y ago
It works. In most applications it would be wasteful of electrical power (and money). You have to generate this very large voltage that (it turns out) you don't really need. On the other hand that circuit is very easy to understand and
296.
by nyeah 1y ago
Yeah, but say 1,000 people each flipped a coin 10,000 times and one of them once got a streak of 29 heads out of 30 flips. Can we assume anything then?
297.
by nyeah 1y ago
Agreed, it's not collusion if it's only done by one person.
298.
by nyeah 1y ago
I meant the claim at the end of this comment: "language doesn't really mean anything." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45372551 I'm fine with each sign being arbitrarily chosen at some point. People
299.
by nyeah 1y ago
I'm having trouble finding a specific meaning here. Has some concern been dismissed? By who?
300.
by nyeah 1y ago
You're right. To me, "gem install" and "cute stickers" come off as snide remarks. Maybe that's partly because you directed those comments at someone who claims to have done major development work.

More ›