|
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 2870202)
The missing money (with nothing to show for it beyond the accounting trickery compensation of a very few) is bad enough and we (as a company will rue the day we did this).
|
Originally Posted by Buck Rogers
(Post 2870224)
hmmm....here was my question "If I buy a house and pay cash.....did I light that money on fire, or did I exchange it for something of value?"
and...here is the answer from Mesabah..... "Yes, management bought themselves a bigger house. They traded billions of the employee's money, for a few million in increased compensation. This is why Congress needs to ban buybacks again. Since no effort was put forth trying to explain (his/Gloopy's) point of view...is it picking an argument to respond with sarcasm ? Seems to me lots of posters on here "defend their buddies" as opposed to actually trying to explain their position. Was my original question antagonistic....stupid...confrontational....what So, would you like to 'splain it to me.... After you answer my original question....could you also rationally explain this statement.." They traded billions of the employee's money How is it "the employees money" Thank you ahead of time for you insight....I'm sure my ignorance will be resolved If you want to distribute excess capital to the share holders, you do it through the dividend. |
Originally Posted by Buck Rogers
(Post 2870226)
Sorry to be dense....this is what I'm having a tough time understanding. If I own a business with 3 other partners and I use MY money to buy out one of the partners do I have nothing to show for that money? (substitute Delta for I/my)....do you get my question?
If there is 1000 stock and I buy back 100 at $50 then reissue the same 100 at $65 all without losing my relative control of my company, is this a good move or bad move? |
Originally Posted by ChecklistMonkey
(Post 2870233)
I'd like to add: I'm not a business major, so please correct me if I'm wrong...
If there is 1000 stock and I buy back 100 at $50 then reissue the same 100 at $65 all without losing my relative control of my company, is this a good move or bad move? |
[QUOTE=Mesabah;2870232]Over the last decade and a half, the employee's have made billions in sacrifices to create the company they have today. Agreed But the Huge profits don't belong to the employees unless I missed that in the contract
Buying back shares has the effect of amplifying the upside, AND also the downside. Agreed , but they run a business to make money...not lose money Since there are less shares, EPS, earnings or losses per share go up.Agreed....but again...they aren't running the business to lose money This helps absolutely no one, except those who have compensation based on it. Does it not help ALL the other stockholder by increasing their investment? If you want to distribute excess capital to the share holders, you do it through the dividend. Have you every seen what happens to a stocks share price when you cut the dividend? Once you "give" something...it is very difficult to take it away.....Dividends are not analogous to PS{/QUOTE} |
Originally Posted by Buck Rogers
(Post 2870238)
This helps absolutely no one, except those who have compensation based on it. Does it not help ALL the other stockholder by increasing their investment? The theory is yes, but historically it hasn't happened. The only time I've seen it happen is a pharma, buying back shares before a huge drug approval. If you want to distribute excess capital to the share holders, you do it through the dividend. Have you every seen what happens to a stocks share price when you cut the dividend? Once you "give" something...it is very difficult to take it away.....Dividends are not analogous to PS{/QUOTE} |
so...back to my follow up question previously...
"BTW....If mgt sold that stock (even with the hit today)....they would be geniuses....shysters...incompetent....what? Since that money is not the employees but instead, the owners(stock holders) would they be happy or disgruntled?" Not being argumentative....but this is NOT as simple as it is being portrayed as That was the only point I was trying to make....You guys seem to think it is...."SO BE IT" |
[QUOTE=Buck Rogers;2870238]
Originally Posted by Mesabah
(Post 2870232)
Over the last decade and a half, the employee's have made billions in sacrifices to create the company they have today. Agreed But the Huge profits don't belong to the employees unless I missed that in the contract
Buying back shares has the effect of amplifying the upside, AND also the downside. Agreed , but they run a business to make money...not lose money Since there are less shares, EPS, earnings or losses per share go up.Agreed....but again...they aren't running the business to lose money This helps absolutely no one, except those who have compensation based on it. Does it not help ALL the other stockholder by increasing their investment? If you want to distribute excess capital to the share holders, you do it through the dividend. Have you every seen what happens to a stocks share price when you cut the dividend? Once you "give" something...it is very difficult to take it away.....Dividends are not analogous to PS{/QUOTE} Your example of paying for a house, you actually purchased something, and avoided paying interest, which is good. Our most recent stock buy back was actually done on credit so we paid interest to buy.... what a slightly higher percentage of stock? Nobody has said all that money should be handed over to the employees, but using cash on hand is intended to generate more money. Sometimes it’s to pay employees to get better service, in our business it can be used to purchase stuff that makes money, like aircraft, or better IT systems or equipment to make the business be more efficient, or investing in different businesses that generate income. But you won’t hear any of this because you like to belittle anyone who disagrees with you, which over the past few weeks has been just about everyone. Hashtag sarcasm amiright |
Originally Posted by Buck Rogers
(Post 2870249)
so...back to my follow up question previously...
"BTW....If mgt sold that stock (even with the hit today)....they would be geniuses....shysters...incompetent....what? Since that money is not the employees but instead, the owners(stock holders) would they be happy or disgruntled?" Not being argumentative....but this is NOT as simple as it is being portrayed as That was the only point I was trying to make....You guys seem to think it is...."SO BE IT" |
[QUOTE=Gooner;2870253]
Originally Posted by Buck Rogers
(Post 2870238)
The problem with stock buybacks is they don’t generate anything, other than a way for executives who can offload stock in which they are paid.They own a greater percent of the company....that's not ...NOTHING Your example of paying for a house, you actually purchased something, and avoided paying interest, which is good. Our most recent stock buy back was actually done on credit so we paid interest to buy.... what a slightly higher percentage of stock? Have you ever bought a stock on margin? Nobody has said all that money should be handed over to the employees, but using cash on hand is intended to generate more money. Sometimes it’s to pay employees to get better service, in our business it can be used to purchase stuff that makes money, like aircraft,Go look up on the Delta web site of how may A/C we own compared to how many we lease....compared to bygone era's it is quite impressive( let me know if you need the link/path) or better IT systems or equipment to make the business be more efficient, or investing in different businesses that generate income. Does the SEA...LAX....LGA "investment count? But you won’t hear any of this because you like to belittle anyone who disagrees with you, which over the past few weeks has been just about everyone. Hashtag sarcasm amiright...Come on dude...it'S gonna take more than that to insult me....besides I already explained your ilk earlier |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:39 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands