Originally Posted by
mispoken
The reduction in share count and thus higher EPS doesn’t necessarily equate to higher share prices. The cynical side of me believes that since at least some of the executive suites performance/bonuses/compensation is is tied to EPS, they reduce share count and thus EPS to show that they are “performing”.
Another thing to consider is that it’s possible that rather than stock buy backs, they could keep acquiring more 49% stakes than they already are and thus adding further pressure to scope. The other argument is that it should be going toward employee compensation and benefits, but we will certainly have to fight for that.
Nell Minnow has some interesting stuff on corporate governance and her view is that in almost all cases, buybacks are never done to benefit the shareholder and only the executives who benefit most from it. Here is one of her articles.
https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2019/02/22/a-capitalists-solution-to-the-problem-of-excessive-buybacks/
Interesting article...[excerpt] "There are two ways to reach earnings per share goals, by increasing earnings or reducing outstanding shares. But only one of those has real long-term benefits to shareholders. Executives do better from buybacks than retail investors, the exact opposite of what incentive compensation is supposed to accomplish. This is not just bad for the long-term viability of the corporations; the agency costs involved undermine the credibility of our system of capitalism."
To think - particularly in this industry - that we have nothing better to do with free cash than artificially inflate EPS is pretty crazy. I dig the suggestion that management should be required to hold stock and options at least 3 (or 5?) years after the most recent buyback.