Stop Walmart Act

[McRocket]

Sorry, but I don't agree. Sure, free market has corrections, recessions and even depressions. But if left to their own devices, they ALWAYS fix themselves up quickly.

your examples,along with many more, are the gub'mit having to mitigate market anarchy McRocket

free market solutions always end up anarcho-capitalism

Sorry Libertarian Anarchists, Capitalism Requires Government

Sorry, I scanned your link and it does not seem to mention one statistic or post a link to statistics. It just seems to blather on about theory. Theories mean little/nothing to me. Proof with unbiased data means a lot to me.

And I have already posted data that backs up my claims concerning the two, largest economic corrections of the 20'th century.

US economy adds 96K jobs, rate falls to 8.1 pct. [W:123] - Page 22

Do you have a link to unbiased, factual statistics/data to backup your theory?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Equivalent to a Walmart tariff that consumers will ultimately pay. You know, those middle class and poor customers?

Make an argument that Walmart can't afford to raise pay and buy-back stock while never touching their prices.

Make an argument that Walmart can't afford to raise pay

Create your own WalMart, pay as much as you'd like.
Let me know when your IPO is ready.

You've got nothing.

Your whining is very convincing.

 

[saveliberty]

Sorry, I scanned your link and it does not seem to mention one statistic or post a link to statistics. It just seems to blather on about theory. Theories mean little/nothing to me. Proof with unbiased data means a lot to me.

And I have already posted data that backs up my claims concerning the two, largest economic corrections of the 20'th century.

US economy adds 96K jobs, rate falls to 8.1 pct. [W:123] - Page 22

Do you have a link to unbiased, factual statistics/data to backup your theory?

96K in jobs is not a recovery. Particularly when the rate is 8.1. You also are referencing a blog.

 

[Winston]

Horseshit. The reason companies buy back stock is to artificially inflate the stock price in order to inflate executive compensation. Those executives either have bonuses based on the stock price, or they have options. By using company money to retire stock they write themselves a raise without doing a damn thing. Anyone with half a damn brain can figure this out. Corporate stock buybacks should be banned, PERIOD.

Companies should be outlawed from owning their own shares?

You have to go to a university to learn such dumbass Stalinist thinking.

They should be outlawed from buying back their shares and retiring them, which is what a stock buyback is. If you had even a minimal education in finance or business you would know that. But then again, you don't have to go to a university to learn such things, but you do have to pull your head out of your ass.

They should be outlawed from buying back their shares and retiring them

Why?

Because it is nothing but the artificial manipulation of the stock price. And the reason behind it is executive compensation that is based on that stock price. Two things happened during the Reagan administration. First, stock options as a means of compensation were allowed to be "off the books". If a company gave their executives an option at x price and the price increased to y the company did not have to list y - x on their balance sheet, nor did they have any expense to list on the income statement until the option was exercised. Then the ban on corporate buybacks was lifted. Now you see what happened.

And I mentioned Sears earlier in this thread. Sears spent 4 billion dollars on stock buybacks over the last several years. Now they are bankrupt. Had they spent that four billion on upgrading their brick and mortar stores maybe they wouldn't be in the position they are in today. All that stock buyback did was inflate the incomes of the executives, and that was the purpose behind them. Honestly, both stock buybacks and the EITC lead to economic inefficiencies as can be seen by the Sears example and the unproductive employees at Walmart.

Because it is nothing but the artificial manipulation of the stock price.

Why do you feel it is manipulation? Why is a purchase "artificial"?

And the reason behind it is executive compensation that is based on that stock price.

The reason is also increasing earnings per share and efficient return of capital to shareholders.

Then the ban on corporate buybacks was lifted. Now you see what happened.

The Dow went from below 1000 to over 25000. Awful, just awful.
And I mentioned Sears earlier in this thread. Sears spent 4 billion dollars on stock buybacks over the last several years. Now they are bankrupt.

Sometimes companies go bankrupt.

Had they spent that four billion on upgrading their brick and mortar stores maybe they wouldn't be in the position they are in today.

And maybe they would.

All that stock buyback did was inflate the incomes of the executives,

And the wallets of anyone who sold their stock back to the company.

​

First, no one has explained to me how it is "investing" in anything when a company indulges in stock buybacks, well other than investing in ARTIFICALLY inflating the stock price. It is artificial because it has no basis in the performance of the company. Your claim that it increases the earnings per share is proof positive of how it is artificial. There is no change in the performance of the company, there is no expansion, no capital investment, no increased market share for the companies products, no increased efficiency in the operations of the company, NOTHING but a bit of pencil pushing and poof, an increased earnings per share. I mean if I exchange four quarters for a dollar have I increased anything? Stock buybacks are the same damn thing. And that return of capital to the shareholders, well yeah, like a severance package is a return to an employee. The only way you get that severance package is if you leave the company, the only way you get that return on capital is if you sell your stock, same thing.

Like I said, for the long term investor a stock buyback is not a good thing. It is a sign of a company giving up. They have no acceptable capital investment opportunities so they use their cash to buy back stock. Hell sometimes they actually borrow money to buy back stock. Hell yeah, I would be selling my stock back to that company. If they want to return money to their shareholders why not increase the dividend or provide a temporary "bonus" as a dividend. Does that not increase the value of the stock? Does the dividend yield not mean anything anymore? Oh wait, executive compensation is not based on the dividend yield of a stock now is it?

Stock buybacks should be banned because, in the larger scheme of things, they do far more damage than any temporary benefit they might provide. They are one of the root causes of the increased wealth inequality, a driving force behind lackluster wage growth, a principal factor in the lack of capital investment over the last generation, and the driving force behind ballooning executive compensation. Not to mention a contributing factor in the bankruptcies of not just Sears, but many other now failed companies.

 

[Winston]

Horseshit. The reason companies buy back stock is to artificially inflate the stock price in order to inflate executive compensation. Those executives either have bonuses based on the stock price, or they have options. By using company money to retire stock they write themselves a raise without doing a damn thing. Anyone with half a damn brain can figure this out. Corporate stock buybacks should be banned, PERIOD.

Companies should be outlawed from owning their own shares?

You have to go to a university to learn such dumbass Stalinist thinking.

They should be outlawed from buying back their shares and retiring them, which is what a stock buyback is. If you had even a minimal education in finance or business you would know that. But then again, you don't have to go to a university to learn such things, but you do have to pull your head out of your ass.

Since the first stocks were sold that’s been a practice. And very good practice to invest in your own business.

Which university dumbed you down so much your aren’t familiar with basic principles of investing?

Tell me, if a company buys back their stock and then retires it, just how are they investing in their business? In fact, the opposite happens. When a company uses funds that could otherwise be reinvested into the business to buy back stock simply to inflate the stock price for the benefit of executive compensation plans they can sometimes end up like Sears.

Tell me, if a company buys back their stock and then retires it, just how are they investing in their business?

Tell me, if you aren't an owner of a company, why should your opinion of what they should do with their cash matter the tiniest bit?

Hell, I don't know, maybe someone is an employee, a supplier, a contractor, a landlord, neighbor, or even a state or federal government. Sorry, but owners are not the only people with a vested interest in a company. The fact that you thing they are is proof positive of how far down the rabbit hole you have fallen.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Companies should be outlawed from owning their own shares?

You have to go to a university to learn such dumbass Stalinist thinking.

They should be outlawed from buying back their shares and retiring them, which is what a stock buyback is. If you had even a minimal education in finance or business you would know that. But then again, you don't have to go to a university to learn such things, but you do have to pull your head out of your ass.

They should be outlawed from buying back their shares and retiring them

Why?

Because it is nothing but the artificial manipulation of the stock price. And the reason behind it is executive compensation that is based on that stock price. Two things happened during the Reagan administration. First, stock options as a means of compensation were allowed to be "off the books". If a company gave their executives an option at x price and the price increased to y the company did not have to list y - x on their balance sheet, nor did they have any expense to list on the income statement until the option was exercised. Then the ban on corporate buybacks was lifted. Now you see what happened.

And I mentioned Sears earlier in this thread. Sears spent 4 billion dollars on stock buybacks over the last several years. Now they are bankrupt. Had they spent that four billion on upgrading their brick and mortar stores maybe they wouldn't be in the position they are in today. All that stock buyback did was inflate the incomes of the executives, and that was the purpose behind them. Honestly, both stock buybacks and the EITC lead to economic inefficiencies as can be seen by the Sears example and the unproductive employees at Walmart.

Because it is nothing but the artificial manipulation of the stock price.

Why do you feel it is manipulation? Why is a purchase "artificial"?

And the reason behind it is executive compensation that is based on that stock price.

The reason is also increasing earnings per share and efficient return of capital to shareholders.

Then the ban on corporate buybacks was lifted. Now you see what happened.

The Dow went from below 1000 to over 25000. Awful, just awful.
And I mentioned Sears earlier in this thread. Sears spent 4 billion dollars on stock buybacks over the last several years. Now they are bankrupt.

Sometimes companies go bankrupt.

Had they spent that four billion on upgrading their brick and mortar stores maybe they wouldn't be in the position they are in today.

And maybe they would.

All that stock buyback did was inflate the incomes of the executives,

And the wallets of anyone who sold their stock back to the company.

​

First, no one has explained to me how it is "investing" in anything when a company indulges in stock buybacks, well other than investing in ARTIFICALLY inflating the stock price. It is artificial because it has no basis in the performance of the company. Your claim that it increases the earnings per share is proof positive of how it is artificial. There is no change in the performance of the company, there is no expansion, no capital investment, no increased market share for the companies products, no increased efficiency in the operations of the company, NOTHING but a bit of pencil pushing and poof, an increased earnings per share. I mean if I exchange four quarters for a dollar have I increased anything? Stock buybacks are the same damn thing. And that return of capital to the shareholders, well yeah, like a severance package is a return to an employee. The only way you get that severance package is if you leave the company, the only way you get that return on capital is if you sell your stock, same thing.

Like I said, for the long term investor a stock buyback is not a good thing. It is a sign of a company giving up. They have no acceptable capital investment opportunities so they use their cash to buy back stock. Hell sometimes they actually borrow money to buy back stock. Hell yeah, I would be selling my stock back to that company. If they want to return money to their shareholders why not increase the dividend or provide a temporary "bonus" as a dividend. Does that not increase the value of the stock? Does the dividend yield not mean anything anymore? Oh wait, executive compensation is not based on the dividend yield of a stock now is it?

Stock buybacks should be banned because, in the larger scheme of things, they do far more damage than any temporary benefit they might provide. They are one of the root causes of the increased wealth inequality, a driving force behind lackluster wage growth, a principal factor in the lack of capital investment over the last generation, and the driving force behind ballooning executive compensation. Not to mention a contributing factor in the bankruptcies of not just Sears, but many other now failed companies.

First, no one has explained to me how it is "investing" in anything when a company indulges in stock buybacks,

Not your company, not your money. Why would anyone have to explain anything to you?

well other than investing in ARTIFICALLY inflating the stock price.

Yeah, I hate it when my stock prices go up.

It is artificial because it has no basis in the performance of the company.

Well, the company did well enough to earn this extra money that they used to retire shares...….

Your claim that it increases the earnings per share is proof positive of how it is artificial.

A company earns $1,000,000 with 1,000,000 outstanding shares. Earnings are $1 per share.
They buy back 200,000 shares and next year they earn $1,000,000. Earnings are $1.25 per share.

Explain how my math is "artificial".

NOTHING but a bit of pencil pushing and poof, an increased earnings per share.

You should definitely sell your shares in that case.

And that return of capital to the shareholders, well yeah, like a severance package is a return to an employee. The only way you get that severance package is if you leave the company, the only way you get that return on capital is if you sell your stock, same thing.

Wait, you said they are "ARTIFICALLY inflating the stock price".
Sounds like I don't have to sell my stock to benefit.

Like I said, for the long term investor a stock buyback is not a good thing.

Like I said, don't like it, sell your shares.

Hell sometimes they actually borrow money to buy back stock.

Hell, if interest rates are low enough and they think the stock price and dividend will be higher in the future, that could be a great investment.

If they want to return money to their shareholders why not increase the dividend or provide a temporary "bonus" as a dividend.

Because dividends are taxed at a higher rate than capital gains.

Stock buybacks should be banned because, in the larger scheme of things, they do far more damage than any temporary benefit they might provide.

You should never buy shares back in your company, if that's how you feel.

They are one of the root causes of the increased wealth inequality, a driving force behind lackluster wage growth,

Boohoo.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Companies should be outlawed from owning their own shares?

You have to go to a university to learn such dumbass Stalinist thinking.

They should be outlawed from buying back their shares and retiring them, which is what a stock buyback is. If you had even a minimal education in finance or business you would know that. But then again, you don't have to go to a university to learn such things, but you do have to pull your head out of your ass.

Since the first stocks were sold that’s been a practice. And very good practice to invest in your own business.

Which university dumbed you down so much your aren’t familiar with basic principles of investing?

Tell me, if a company buys back their stock and then retires it, just how are they investing in their business? In fact, the opposite happens. When a company uses funds that could otherwise be reinvested into the business to buy back stock simply to inflate the stock price for the benefit of executive compensation plans they can sometimes end up like Sears.

Tell me, if a company buys back their stock and then retires it, just how are they investing in their business?

Tell me, if you aren't an owner of a company, why should your opinion of what they should do with their cash matter the tiniest bit?

Hell, I don't know, maybe someone is an employee, a supplier, a contractor, a landlord, neighbor, or even a state or federal government. Sorry, but owners are not the only people with a vested interest in a company. The fact that you thing they are is proof positive of how far down the rabbit hole you have fallen.

Hell, I don't know, maybe someone is an employee, a supplier, a contractor, a landlord, neighbor, or even a state or federal government.

If those non-owners don't like how things are run, they should buy some shares and vote to change things.

Sorry, but owners are not the only people with a vested interest in a company

Sorry, comrade, no ownership, no say.

 

[Winston]

They should be outlawed from buying back their shares and retiring them, which is what a stock buyback is. If you had even a minimal education in finance or business you would know that. But then again, you don't have to go to a university to learn such things, but you do have to pull your head out of your ass.

They should be outlawed from buying back their shares and retiring them

Why?

Because it is nothing but the artificial manipulation of the stock price. And the reason behind it is executive compensation that is based on that stock price. Two things happened during the Reagan administration. First, stock options as a means of compensation were allowed to be "off the books". If a company gave their executives an option at x price and the price increased to y the company did not have to list y - x on their balance sheet, nor did they have any expense to list on the income statement until the option was exercised. Then the ban on corporate buybacks was lifted. Now you see what happened.

And I mentioned Sears earlier in this thread. Sears spent 4 billion dollars on stock buybacks over the last several years. Now they are bankrupt. Had they spent that four billion on upgrading their brick and mortar stores maybe they wouldn't be in the position they are in today. All that stock buyback did was inflate the incomes of the executives, and that was the purpose behind them. Honestly, both stock buybacks and the EITC lead to economic inefficiencies as can be seen by the Sears example and the unproductive employees at Walmart.

Because it is nothing but the artificial manipulation of the stock price.

Why do you feel it is manipulation? Why is a purchase "artificial"?

And the reason behind it is executive compensation that is based on that stock price.

The reason is also increasing earnings per share and efficient return of capital to shareholders.

Then the ban on corporate buybacks was lifted. Now you see what happened.

The Dow went from below 1000 to over 25000. Awful, just awful.
And I mentioned Sears earlier in this thread. Sears spent 4 billion dollars on stock buybacks over the last several years. Now they are bankrupt.

Sometimes companies go bankrupt.

Had they spent that four billion on upgrading their brick and mortar stores maybe they wouldn't be in the position they are in today.

And maybe they would.

All that stock buyback did was inflate the incomes of the executives,

And the wallets of anyone who sold their stock back to the company.

​

First, no one has explained to me how it is "investing" in anything when a company indulges in stock buybacks, well other than investing in ARTIFICALLY inflating the stock price. It is artificial because it has no basis in the performance of the company. Your claim that it increases the earnings per share is proof positive of how it is artificial. There is no change in the performance of the company, there is no expansion, no capital investment, no increased market share for the companies products, no increased efficiency in the operations of the company, NOTHING but a bit of pencil pushing and poof, an increased earnings per share. I mean if I exchange four quarters for a dollar have I increased anything? Stock buybacks are the same damn thing. And that return of capital to the shareholders, well yeah, like a severance package is a return to an employee. The only way you get that severance package is if you leave the company, the only way you get that return on capital is if you sell your stock, same thing.

Like I said, for the long term investor a stock buyback is not a good thing. It is a sign of a company giving up. They have no acceptable capital investment opportunities so they use their cash to buy back stock. Hell sometimes they actually borrow money to buy back stock. Hell yeah, I would be selling my stock back to that company. If they want to return money to their shareholders why not increase the dividend or provide a temporary "bonus" as a dividend. Does that not increase the value of the stock? Does the dividend yield not mean anything anymore? Oh wait, executive compensation is not based on the dividend yield of a stock now is it?

Stock buybacks should be banned because, in the larger scheme of things, they do far more damage than any temporary benefit they might provide. They are one of the root causes of the increased wealth inequality, a driving force behind lackluster wage growth, a principal factor in the lack of capital investment over the last generation, and the driving force behind ballooning executive compensation. Not to mention a contributing factor in the bankruptcies of not just Sears, but many other now failed companies.

First, no one has explained to me how it is "investing" in anything when a company indulges in stock buybacks,

Not your company, not your money. Why would anyone have to explain anything to you?

well other than investing in ARTIFICALLY inflating the stock price.

Yeah, I hate it when my stock prices go up.

It is artificial because it has no basis in the performance of the company.

Well, the company did well enough to earn this extra money that they used to retire shares...….

Your claim that it increases the earnings per share is proof positive of how it is artificial.

A company earns $1,000,000 with 1,000,000 outstanding shares. Earnings are $1 per share.
They buy back 200,000 shares and next year they earn $1,000,000. Earnings are $1.25 per share.

Explain how my math is "artificial".

NOTHING but a bit of pencil pushing and poof, an increased earnings per share.

You should definitely sell your shares in that case.

And that return of capital to the shareholders, well yeah, like a severance package is a return to an employee. The only way you get that severance package is if you leave the company, the only way you get that return on capital is if you sell your stock, same thing.

Wait, you said they are "ARTIFICALLY inflating the stock price".
Sounds like I don't have to sell my stock to benefit.

Like I said, for the long term investor a stock buyback is not a good thing.

Like I said, don't like it, sell your shares.

Hell sometimes they actually borrow money to buy back stock.

Hell, if interest rates are low enough and they think the stock price and dividend will be higher in the future, that could be a great investment.

If they want to return money to their shareholders why not increase the dividend or provide a temporary "bonus" as a dividend.

Because dividends are taxed at a higher rate than capital gains.

Stock buybacks should be banned because, in the larger scheme of things, they do far more damage than any temporary benefit they might provide.

You should never buy shares back in your company, if that's how you feel.

They are one of the root causes of the increased wealth inequality, a driving force behind lackluster wage growth,

Boohoo.

Hell, if interest rates are low enough and they think the stock price and dividend will be higher in the future, that would be a great investment.

Obviously, you don't even know how stock buybacks work. That statement is downright comical. Tell me, just what stock are they going to sell in the future? DU HUH.

And your example of the increased EPS again, proves it is artificial. The damn earnings were THE SAME. Again, DU HUH. How does the same earnings mean the company is more valuable? I mean here is a thought. So, your an executive and your compensation is tied to the stock price, either with granted options are as a performance measure. You have no acceptable capital investments. Your market is shrinking. Your sales are dropping. But hey, you could buy back some stock, retire it, and damn, your stock price goes up. Or maybe you are a shit CEO. You are driving the company in the ground and all your employees know it. You are even cannibalizing the best parts of the company for your own personal benefit. But hey, buy some stock and retire it and suddenly your stock goes up, and so does your compensation. Get paid more for not being worth a shit. I mean only in America, literally, only in America.

 

[Winston]

They should be outlawed from buying back their shares and retiring them, which is what a stock buyback is. If you had even a minimal education in finance or business you would know that. But then again, you don't have to go to a university to learn such things, but you do have to pull your head out of your ass.

Since the first stocks were sold that’s been a practice. And very good practice to invest in your own business.

Which university dumbed you down so much your aren’t familiar with basic principles of investing?

Tell me, if a company buys back their stock and then retires it, just how are they investing in their business? In fact, the opposite happens. When a company uses funds that could otherwise be reinvested into the business to buy back stock simply to inflate the stock price for the benefit of executive compensation plans they can sometimes end up like Sears.

Tell me, if a company buys back their stock and then retires it, just how are they investing in their business?

Tell me, if you aren't an owner of a company, why should your opinion of what they should do with their cash matter the tiniest bit?

Hell, I don't know, maybe someone is an employee, a supplier, a contractor, a landlord, neighbor, or even a state or federal government. Sorry, but owners are not the only people with a vested interest in a company. The fact that you thing they are is proof positive of how far down the rabbit hole you have fallen.

Hell, I don't know, maybe someone is an employee, a supplier, a contractor, a landlord, neighbor, or even a state or federal government.

If those non-owners don't like how things are run, they should buy some shares and vote to change things.

Sorry, but owners are not the only people with a vested interest in a company

Sorry, comrade, no ownership, no say.

Not only is that comical, it is completely naïve. Seriously, you think someone with a couple hundred shares of stock has any say in how a company operates? Back to Sears, you think their stockholders have a voice now? LMAO. But the suppliers, the debt holders, and the judge--they have all the say. But even in a company not operating in bankruptcy, unless someone holds at least five percent of the company their voice is little more than pissing in the wind. But the suppliers, they have a say. The state and municipality in which the company operates, they have a say. Contractors and consultants, they have a huge voice. The landlord, he has a say. Even the employees have a greater voice than some pissant stockholder.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They should be outlawed from buying back their shares and retiring them

Why?

Because it is nothing but the artificial manipulation of the stock price. And the reason behind it is executive compensation that is based on that stock price. Two things happened during the Reagan administration. First, stock options as a means of compensation were allowed to be "off the books". If a company gave their executives an option at x price and the price increased to y the company did not have to list y - x on their balance sheet, nor did they have any expense to list on the income statement until the option was exercised. Then the ban on corporate buybacks was lifted. Now you see what happened.

And I mentioned Sears earlier in this thread. Sears spent 4 billion dollars on stock buybacks over the last several years. Now they are bankrupt. Had they spent that four billion on upgrading their brick and mortar stores maybe they wouldn't be in the position they are in today. All that stock buyback did was inflate the incomes of the executives, and that was the purpose behind them. Honestly, both stock buybacks and the EITC lead to economic inefficiencies as can be seen by the Sears example and the unproductive employees at Walmart.

Because it is nothing but the artificial manipulation of the stock price.

Why do you feel it is manipulation? Why is a purchase "artificial"?

And the reason behind it is executive compensation that is based on that stock price.

The reason is also increasing earnings per share and efficient return of capital to shareholders.

Then the ban on corporate buybacks was lifted. Now you see what happened.

The Dow went from below 1000 to over 25000. Awful, just awful.
And I mentioned Sears earlier in this thread. Sears spent 4 billion dollars on stock buybacks over the last several years. Now they are bankrupt.

Sometimes companies go bankrupt.

Had they spent that four billion on upgrading their brick and mortar stores maybe they wouldn't be in the position they are in today.

And maybe they would.

All that stock buyback did was inflate the incomes of the executives,

And the wallets of anyone who sold their stock back to the company.

​

First, no one has explained to me how it is "investing" in anything when a company indulges in stock buybacks, well other than investing in ARTIFICALLY inflating the stock price. It is artificial because it has no basis in the performance of the company. Your claim that it increases the earnings per share is proof positive of how it is artificial. There is no change in the performance of the company, there is no expansion, no capital investment, no increased market share for the companies products, no increased efficiency in the operations of the company, NOTHING but a bit of pencil pushing and poof, an increased earnings per share. I mean if I exchange four quarters for a dollar have I increased anything? Stock buybacks are the same damn thing. And that return of capital to the shareholders, well yeah, like a severance package is a return to an employee. The only way you get that severance package is if you leave the company, the only way you get that return on capital is if you sell your stock, same thing.

Like I said, for the long term investor a stock buyback is not a good thing. It is a sign of a company giving up. They have no acceptable capital investment opportunities so they use their cash to buy back stock. Hell sometimes they actually borrow money to buy back stock. Hell yeah, I would be selling my stock back to that company. If they want to return money to their shareholders why not increase the dividend or provide a temporary "bonus" as a dividend. Does that not increase the value of the stock? Does the dividend yield not mean anything anymore? Oh wait, executive compensation is not based on the dividend yield of a stock now is it?

Stock buybacks should be banned because, in the larger scheme of things, they do far more damage than any temporary benefit they might provide. They are one of the root causes of the increased wealth inequality, a driving force behind lackluster wage growth, a principal factor in the lack of capital investment over the last generation, and the driving force behind ballooning executive compensation. Not to mention a contributing factor in the bankruptcies of not just Sears, but many other now failed companies.

First, no one has explained to me how it is "investing" in anything when a company indulges in stock buybacks,

Not your company, not your money. Why would anyone have to explain anything to you?

well other than investing in ARTIFICALLY inflating the stock price.

Yeah, I hate it when my stock prices go up.

It is artificial because it has no basis in the performance of the company.

Well, the company did well enough to earn this extra money that they used to retire shares...….

Your claim that it increases the earnings per share is proof positive of how it is artificial.

A company earns $1,000,000 with 1,000,000 outstanding shares. Earnings are $1 per share.
They buy back 200,000 shares and next year they earn $1,000,000. Earnings are $1.25 per share.

Explain how my math is "artificial".

NOTHING but a bit of pencil pushing and poof, an increased earnings per share.

You should definitely sell your shares in that case.

And that return of capital to the shareholders, well yeah, like a severance package is a return to an employee. The only way you get that severance package is if you leave the company, the only way you get that return on capital is if you sell your stock, same thing.

Wait, you said they are "ARTIFICALLY inflating the stock price".
Sounds like I don't have to sell my stock to benefit.

Like I said, for the long term investor a stock buyback is not a good thing.

Like I said, don't like it, sell your shares.

Hell sometimes they actually borrow money to buy back stock.

Hell, if interest rates are low enough and they think the stock price and dividend will be higher in the future, that could be a great investment.

If they want to return money to their shareholders why not increase the dividend or provide a temporary "bonus" as a dividend.

Because dividends are taxed at a higher rate than capital gains.

Stock buybacks should be banned because, in the larger scheme of things, they do far more damage than any temporary benefit they might provide.

You should never buy shares back in your company, if that's how you feel.

They are one of the root causes of the increased wealth inequality, a driving force behind lackluster wage growth,

Boohoo.

Hell, if interest rates are low enough and they think the stock price and dividend will be higher in the future, that would be a great investment.

Obviously, you don't even know how stock buybacks work. That statement is downright comical. Tell me, just what stock are they going to sell in the future? DU HUH.

And your example of the increased EPS again, proves it is artificial. The damn earnings were THE SAME. Again, DU HUH. How does the same earnings mean the company is more valuable? I mean here is a thought. So, your an executive and your compensation is tied to the stock price, either with granted options are as a performance measure. You have no acceptable capital investments. Your market is shrinking. Your sales are dropping. But hey, you could buy back some stock, retire it, and damn, your stock price goes up. Or maybe you are a shit CEO. You are driving the company in the ground and all your employees know it. You are even cannibalizing the best parts of the company for your own personal benefit. But hey, buy some stock and retire it and suddenly your stock goes up, and so does your compensation. Get paid more for not being worth a shit. I mean only in America, literally, only in America.

Obviously, you don't even know how stock buybacks work.

I understand them a lot better than you do, low bar, I know.

Tell me, just what stock are they going to sell in the future?

None.

The damn earnings were THE SAME.

Spread over fewer shares.
Which share is more valuable, the one with $1.25 in earnings or the one with $1 in earnings, everything else being equal?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Since the first stocks were sold that’s been a practice. And very good practice to invest in your own business.

Which university dumbed you down so much your aren’t familiar with basic principles of investing?

Tell me, if a company buys back their stock and then retires it, just how are they investing in their business? In fact, the opposite happens. When a company uses funds that could otherwise be reinvested into the business to buy back stock simply to inflate the stock price for the benefit of executive compensation plans they can sometimes end up like Sears.

Tell me, if a company buys back their stock and then retires it, just how are they investing in their business?

Tell me, if you aren't an owner of a company, why should your opinion of what they should do with their cash matter the tiniest bit?

Hell, I don't know, maybe someone is an employee, a supplier, a contractor, a landlord, neighbor, or even a state or federal government. Sorry, but owners are not the only people with a vested interest in a company. The fact that you thing they are is proof positive of how far down the rabbit hole you have fallen.

Hell, I don't know, maybe someone is an employee, a supplier, a contractor, a landlord, neighbor, or even a state or federal government.

If those non-owners don't like how things are run, they should buy some shares and vote to change things.

Sorry, but owners are not the only people with a vested interest in a company

Sorry, comrade, no ownership, no say.

Not only is that comical, it is completely naïve. Seriously, you think someone with a couple hundred shares of stock has any say in how a company operates? Back to Sears, you think their stockholders have a voice now? LMAO. But the suppliers, the debt holders, and the judge--they have all the say. But even in a company not operating in bankruptcy, unless someone holds at least five percent of the company their voice is little more than pissing in the wind. But the suppliers, they have a say. The state and municipality in which the company operates, they have a say. Contractors and consultants, they have a huge voice. The landlord, he has a say. Even the employees have a greater voice than some pissant stockholder.

Seriously, you think someone with a couple hundred shares of stock has any say in how a company operates?

Seriously, of course not. And a guy who owns zero shares should have even less say. Seriously.

 

[OnePercenter]

Next Bernie will enter a bill to forgive student loan debts for those making less than a million a year.

Student loan debt is a $1.5 Trillion dollar detriment to the US economy.

You plan on hitting every hook we put in the water today?

The problem with student loan debt is colleges have priced themselves too high. A cost that did not exceed 10% of a person's starting salary would result in debt repayments and a financially sound employee/graduate.

The answer is: Profit based schools have been at the forefront of rising tuition.

Who could have guessed that rising tuition rates would bring in profit based schools? Government ignorance and interference worked so well for the public hospitals.

Rising tuition rates are the fault of profit based schools.

 

[OnePercenter]

Do the math.

I thought you were referencing Walmart.

If the government passed a law making buybacks prohibitively expensive like in that bill, companies would stop buying back stock and start paying their cash out in dividends. They wouldn’t increase the pay of their employees.

The reason why is because what shareholders want is cash returned to them. Right now, it’s more tax efficient to return cash via buybacks than dividends. But if you made it more tax efficient to return cash via dividends by raising taxes on buybacks, companies will just increase dividends.

The Walmart seven are taking the company private. A shareholder either takes the market offer or stands the risk of their stock losing value. To pay for this, Walmart has paid their employees crap, taught their employees to live off of public assistance, and manipulated government subsidies to build stores. Once the subsidy ran out, the majority of the subsidized stores developed a nationwide plumbing problem and closed.

I think the absolute least Walmart can do is paying their employees $15.00 per hour.

The Walmart seven are taking the company private.

You're lying.

Why are they buying all of their stock back?

Because you're incredibly bad at math.

Walmart doesn't need investors.

 

[DOTR]

This is the thanks that Walmart gets for supporting Oboingo in raising the minimum wage.

More proof that no mater what you give the moonbats, it will never ever be enough.

Liberalism is a progressive disease. There is no logical stopping point.

 

[OnePercenter]

Next Bernie will enter a bill to forgive student loan debts for those making less than a million a year.

Student loan debt is a $1.5 Trillion dollar detriment to the US economy.

Thanks, Obama

The tRumpette thinks that all student loan is the fault of Obama.

 

[OnePercenter]

That legislation would be unconstitutional on its face.

Make your point.

He did. The government does not have this authority.

The government doesn't have have the authority to regulate? Since when?

 

[OnePercenter]

Student loan debt is a $1.5 Trillion dollar detriment to the US economy.

Which most Congressional members are profiting from

But hey, we're all about f*king the kids , IF there's a $$ in it, right?

go ahead, look it up......

~S~

Obama, world's greatest Predatory lender

That would be Wells Fargo.

 

[Darkwind]

That legislation would be unconstitutional on its face.

Make your point.

He did. The government does not have this authority.

The government doesn't have have the authority to regulate? Since when?

It isn't regulation. It is tyranny and beyond the authority of the Federal Government.

 

[OnePercenter]

Next Bernie will enter a bill to forgive student loan debts for those making less than a million a year.

Student loan debt is a $1.5 Trillion dollar detriment to the US economy.

Student loan debt is a $1.5 Trillion dollar detriment to the US economy.

Proves there’s a sucker born every minute. Nothing like a $300,000 college debt to get a degree in Women’s Studies!

Better than no degree, like you.

 

[OnePercenter]

Next Bernie will enter a bill to forgive student loan debts for those making less than a million a year.

Student loan debt is a $1.5 Trillion dollar detriment to the US economy.

DISPATCHES FROM THE EDUCATION APOCALYPSE: UC Administrators: ‘Masculinity Is Not Attached to a Gender.’

Since unlike you, I don't hate women. I do think women should be stronger.