News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:No Science, No Startups: The Innovation Engine We're Swit... by RandomLensman on Monday October 13, 2025 @12:26PM (#45570210)
What is your definition of "benefit"? Assuming a buyback increases share prices, why would shareholders in general be indifferent?
Re:No Science, No Startups: The Innovation Engine We're Swit... by triceratops on Monday October 13, 2025 @01:52PM (#45571312)
Because if I don't intend to sell right now, and the company is otherwise a healthy, going concern that can pay sustainable dividends, the actual share price is irrelevant to me. If anything, given my belief in the company, a lower share price is better. I can buy more shares!
Re:No Science, No Startups: The Innovation Engine We're Swit... by terminalshort on Monday October 13, 2025 @03:55PM (#45572630)
But you now own a larger percentage of the company because you own the same number of a smaller total number of shares outstanding, so you benefit whether you are a seller or a holder. If you intend to buy more it is neutral because the price per share goes up, but each share represents proportionally more.
Re:No Science, No Startups: The Innovation Engine We're Swit... by RandomLensman on Monday October 13, 2025 @02:37PM (#45571823)
If you ever want to sell, getting in the limit nothing for the shares might matter, no? There are other things: for example, share based M&A or compensation or other investors with different preferences - no relevance or interaction?
Re:No Science, No Startups: The Innovation Engine We're Swit... by triceratops on Monday October 13, 2025 @03:09PM (#45572155)
> If you ever want to sell

I already said that buybacks benefit sellers.

> share based M&A or compensation

All fair points. Share-based M&A can be good for investors. But if the stock price is going up because the company spent money on buybacks, then the company could also just pay cash for M&A and skip the buybacks.

Higher compensation is good for employees who get paid stock and for upper management, who are nearly always paid largely in stock. There's an argument that's good for shareholders because of better retention. But if that were the case, why not just pay employees more cash?

Re:No Science, No Startups: The Innovation Engine We're Swit... by RandomLensman on Monday October 13, 2025 @03:23PM (#45572298)
Are there many investors that are never sellers (that is different from selling soon-ish)?

Paying cash could be quite different than paying in shares for M&A.

If owning shares makes no difference ("pay in cash"), why not do buyback then if there is no difference between cash and shares anyway?

Re:No Science, No Startups: The Innovation Engine We're Swit... by BurningFrog on Tuesday October 14, 2025 @12:35AM (#45576306)
Having been in the "don't intend to sell right now" situation for decades, the actual share price movements were always very relevant to me.

I'm confident I share that psychology with almost everyone.

Re:No Science, No Startups: The Innovation Engine We're Swit... by astrange on Tuesday October 14, 2025 @01:00AM (#45576421)
Stop looking.

Well, "don't sell" is the wrong strategy anyway. Trade it in for an index fund.

Re:No Science, No Startups: The Innovation Engine We're Swit... by BurningFrog on Tuesday October 14, 2025 @03:45PM (#45583940)
Can I do that without paying tax on my gains?
Re:No Science, No Startups: The Innovation Engine We're Swit... by astrange on Tuesday October 14, 2025 @05:12PM (#45584968)
If you do it right when your RSUs vest you don't have gains.

Or if you're a multimillionaire: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2025-07-21/how-rich-...