Exactly. Mission accomplished.

The purpose of lighting that money on fire was not to spend it in the best possible way, but to get rid of it in a way that benefitted those lighting it on fire in the first place.

Its gone now, with many billions more to go, and as trendy as it is to do so now, history will judge this very poorly and we will rue the day we did this (at least to this extent).

The next trough cycle when the balance sheet is threatened, we will see the (re)issuance of additional shares at much, much cheaper prices.

Average stock repurchase price for the first six months of 2019: $51.22

Average repurchase price in February 2019, when they used the $1 billion from the loan: $50.97

Current market price as I write this: $57.01

Certainly not defending the stock buy back, but...

If I buy a house and pay cash.....did I light that money on fire, or did I exchange it for something of value?

It can always be argued whether or not the "purchase price" was fair or not(time will tell), but to use the term 'Light on fire" is a bit over the top

You make it sound like they just dumped the money in the river....not sure that's even close to what transpired

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.

That is ......illuminating! Thanks for that reasonable explanation

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?

I get it...in your world, mgt should just dole out the billions to the employees.....would that be on a per capita basis...or off W-2? Looking forward to their largess!

If the shareholders held a vote, 98% would choose to increase the dividend, the other 2% is management.

That is the underlying problem with stock buybacks. Our pilot BOD member should be fighting for adjustments to management compensation based on the reduced number of shares. It should be accounted for just like a stock split that requires adjustments to strike price.

Jeez Buck, you don’t have to treat every comment on here as an opportunity to start an argument. I actually agree with what Mesabah said. I agree with a lot of his comments.

Other than new cash in hand for the B-School bonus crowd, there wasn't anything of tangibile lasting value remaining like a paid for house would be.

I'm not saying all of that money should have been off contract redistribution to the workers. That's nonsense. However its absolutely inexcuseable that much needed infrastructure is being ignored, all of which could have been taken care of by now for a fraction of the 14B+ being burned.

The extent they're doing it is impossible to defend and is red meat to lure the socialists into vast power grabs (and our "blue collar" incomes will be swept up in that big time), probably not that long from now. 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). But the superior infrastructure we could have had by now with a (small) fraction of that money is the real hole in the swiss cheese that was sailed right though.

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