Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 09, 2022, 06:45:31 PMEurope should frack.
Quote from: Berkut on August 09, 2022, 05:12:18 PMThe 80 shareholders did not suddenly own 1/80th each, they still only own 1/100th of the company.They own 1/100th of the company, but the company consists of 20% of the company, so they also own 1/100th of 20% of the company. However, 20% of the company also consists of 20% of 20% of the company, so they also own 1/100th of 20% of 20% of the company. However, 20% of 20% of the company also consists of 20% of 20% of 20% of the company, so they also own 1/100th of 20% of 20% of 20%. If you keep adding it up, 0.01 + 0.002 + 0.0004 + 0.0008 + ... = 0.0125, which incidentally makes up 1/80th of the company.
Right?
Quote from: Berkut on August 09, 2022, 05:12:18 PMQuote from: alfred russel on August 09, 2022, 04:49:05 PMHmmm.Quote from: crazy canuck on August 09, 2022, 01:14:56 PMOne obvious difference is choice. As an investor, I would much rather have the choice of where to invest my dividend money (or spend it) rather than suffer an artificial pump so that the executive suite can exercise a lucrative and perfectly timed dump.
Remember the thesis in favour is that buy backs put cash in the pockets of shareholders. That notion does not hold up to scrutiny.
I don't know why I'm going to try, but here we go:
assume that a company is worth $100 and has 100 shareholders with one share each. Each share is obviously worth $1 a share.
The company has $20 of excess cash that it can't invest. If it pays that as a dividend, each shareholder gets a $0.20 dividend. The share price is reduced to $0.80 because the company is only worth $80 after the dividend.
If it uses that for a stock buyback, it buys 20 shares with the $20. Now the company is worth $80 as before, but there are only 80 shareholders. So the remaining shareholders didn't get a dividend, but because there are only 80 shareholders at the reduced price the shares are now still worth $1 a share.
So shareholders should be indifferent between a buyback and dividend. At the end of the day, they either have an $0.80 share and $0.20 of cash, or no cash but a $1.00 share.
In the first case, each shareholder owned 1% of the company.
When the company bought back those shares, they shares didn't disappear - they just became owned by the company - the company owned itself. It could resell those shares.
The 80 shareholders did not suddenly own 1/80th each, they still only own 1/100th of the company.
Right?
Quote from: alfred russel on August 09, 2022, 04:49:05 PMHmmm.Quote from: crazy canuck on August 09, 2022, 01:14:56 PMOne obvious difference is choice. As an investor, I would much rather have the choice of where to invest my dividend money (or spend it) rather than suffer an artificial pump so that the executive suite can exercise a lucrative and perfectly timed dump.
Remember the thesis in favour is that buy backs put cash in the pockets of shareholders. That notion does not hold up to scrutiny.
I don't know why I'm going to try, but here we go:
assume that a company is worth $100 and has 100 shareholders with one share each. Each share is obviously worth $1 a share.
The company has $20 of excess cash that it can't invest. If it pays that as a dividend, each shareholder gets a $0.20 dividend. The share price is reduced to $0.80 because the company is only worth $80 after the dividend.
If it uses that for a stock buyback, it buys 20 shares with the $20. Now the company is worth $80 as before, but there are only 80 shareholders. So the remaining shareholders didn't get a dividend, but because there are only 80 shareholders at the reduced price the shares are now still worth $1 a share.
So shareholders should be indifferent between a buyback and dividend. At the end of the day, they either have an $0.80 share and $0.20 of cash, or no cash but a $1.00 share.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 09, 2022, 01:11:17 PMWell looks like a bunch of vatniks are running away from Crimea after Ukraine hit their base this morning...
Page created in 0.018 seconds with 13 queries.