←back to thread

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

(arstechnica.com)
259 points pseudolus | 7 comments | 20 Nov 24 21:07 UTC | HN request time: 0.868s | source | bottom
Show context
akira2501 ◴[20 Nov 24 22:08 UTC] No.42198624[source]▶
An entire department was just rendered useless. I genuinely don't feel bad.
replies(4): >>42198645 #>>42198780 #>>42198825 #>>42203051 #
_DeadFred_ ◴[20 Nov 24 22:32 UTC] No.42198825[source]▶
It was funny watching the warrior whatever site back in the day when Panda came along. Love when these people get their horrible business models kneecapped.

Now let's make corporate stock manipulation illegal again and ban corporate stock buybacks. Talk about a purely manipulative business strategy.

replies(2): >>42198845 #>>42200247 #
red_trumpet ◴[20 Nov 24 22:34 UTC] No.42198845[source]▶
What's the problem with stock buybacks?
replies(3): >>42198921 #>>42198951 #>>42199483 #
notyourwork ◴[20 Nov 24 22:49 UTC] No.42198951[source]▶
Nothing directly, it just sounds bad at face value.
replies(1): >>42199488 #
1. _DeadFred_ ◴[20 Nov 24 23:58 UTC] No.42199488[source]▶
'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.'
replies(2): >>42199861 #>>42200338 #
2. notyourwork ◴[21 Nov 24 00:46 UTC] No.42199861[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>42206966 #
3. l33t7332273 ◴[21 Nov 24 02:05 UTC] No.42200338[source]▶
It’s a way to return money to share holders.
replies(1): >>42206910 #
4. _DeadFred_ ◴[21 Nov 24 18:03 UTC] No.42206910[source]▶
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?

replies(1): >>42208341 #
5. _DeadFred_ ◴[21 Nov 24 18:09 UTC] No.42206966[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>42210450 #
6. l33t7332273 ◴[21 Nov 24 20:33 UTC] No.42208341{3}[source]▶
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.

7. notyourwork ◴[22 Nov 24 01:48 UTC] No.42210450{3}[source]▶
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.