Google stops letting sites like Forbes rule search for "Best CBD Gummies"

What's the problem with stock buybacks?

Couple articles that explore that:

https://hbr.org/2020/01/why-stock-buybacks-are-dangerous-for...

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/07/are-stock-...

Nothing directly, it just sounds bad at face value.

They are nothing but direct stock manipulation that was 'legalized' at the same time where executive compensation was moved from salary to... stock, so that you end up with a quasi-legal (stock manipulation by executives is supposed to be illegal) corrupt incentives system.

'Stock manipulation is cool, especially when you change executives pay structure to be based purely on said manipulation. Totally creates healthy incentives not perverse ones.'

Two things:

-Stock buybacks are not manipulation, they’re simply a way to return cash to shareholders and then the shareholder decides when to incur tax liability. A company is well within its rights to issue additional shares or buy back and destroy shares at their discretion. It’s functionally equivalent to a dividend without a taxable event.

-Corporate boards award stock grants to executives because they want management to be aligned with shareholders. I think executive compensation is excessive, but stock grants do align management and shareholders.

Dilution is immoral and unfair to investors. If a company wants to raise money they should have to sell shares they own, not print more and sell those.

Sorry, buy backs are not stock manipulation. Let's step back from emotions and political skew. A company is able to take their capital and deploy it how they see fit. This can include purchasing percentage ownership of their company back from stockholders. Whether or not you agree doesn't make it manipulation in the general sense. It's just a way for a company to use their money.

It’s a way to return money to share holders.

I think it’s kind of up to the investors what is unfair for them.

That is your opinion and does not reflect reality.

If it's intent is to manipulate the value of the stock, then it is stock manipulation. You give a distinction without a difference.

By manipulating the value of the stock that shareholders. In order to do what you claim it does, it has to.... manipulate the stocks value, aka stock manipulations. You give a distinction without a difference.

And shareholders only 'benefit' from this return if they sell their stock (ie give up being stock holders) versus the traditional method where stock holders receive and dividend and maintain their stock ownership. A dividend benefits all stock holdres, stock manipulation only benefits those that sell, a smaller arbitrary subset. Why chose a 'return' method that is only for some investors?

Why do they repurchase the stock? In order to impact the stock's value (also known as manipulating it's value). That is the definition of stock manipulation. No emotions involved, no need for the passive aggressive attack that I'm somehow being emotional.

It's not just a way for a company to use their money. It is a company intentionally using funds for stock manipulation, many times by executives who directly benefit from said manipulation. Companies even take out loans purely to re-purchase stock.

In what sense is it a manipulation? If I have a billion in cash and spend it all on a stock, that stock price will go up; that’s not manipulation. That’s supply and demand.

>Why chose a 'return' method that is only for some investors?

The investors control the company, so they get to decide that.

You have a shallow understanding of economics and the stock market. Sorry but your cynical view is not something that generalizes to stock buybacks. And the example of taking a loan out can be financially sound. Using debt when cheap to deploy capital can be beneficial.