> turn to the government to finally build in some proper labor laws and other obvious controls (how about re-banning stock buybacks?)

What would banning stock buybacks accomplish? Companies can still return capital to shareholders in the form of dividends.

Dividends don't grow the stock as quickly. They can and will do that, but the goal is to change the incentive structure back to long term growth and not "stock buyback and dip from company in a year".

There is no evidence to indicate buybacks reduce long term incentives for executives compared to dividends.

If anything, all the businesses with the most long term growth have done the most buybacks because they are paying the employees in stock, which employees gladly accept because they bet the business will have long term growth.

And executive compensation is not vested until business targets are met a few years in the future.

> There is no evidence to indicate buybacks reduce long term incentives for executives compared to dividends.

If I am bonused on earnings per share, and I have a button to increase earnings per share mechanically (without needing to increase revenue or decrease costs), why wouldn't I push that button?

Can you share some evidence around your statement? i.e. "There is no evidence to indicate buybacks reduce long term incentives for executives compared to dividends."

> If I am bonused on earnings per share, and I have a button to increase earnings per share mechanically (without needing to increase revenue or decrease costs), why wouldn't I push that button?

Examining fantastical scenarios is a waste of time. No one has that button, there is a whole board of directors that votes on these things, and again, compensation is staggered over various performance targets staggered over a number of years. The proxy reports detailing these are easily accessible with an online search.

> Can you share some evidence around your statement? i.e. "There is no evidence to indicate buybacks reduce long term incentives for executives compared to dividends."

Reality. The businesses that have the best long term performance over the previous decades are the ones that have done the most buybacks, hence buybacks do not cause short term-ism. It’s just as easy as a business cutting expenses now to juice dividends in the near term, we’ve seen it time and time again with businesses that sacrifice quality and innovation in the short term which eventually cede ground to new businesses.

> Reality. The businesses that have the best long term performance over the previous decades are the ones that have done the most buybacks, hence buybacks do not cause short term-ism. It’s just as easy as a business cutting expenses now to juice dividends in the near term, we’ve seen it time and time again with businesses that sacrifice quality and innovation in the short term which eventually cede ground to new businesses.

So no source(s) then?

Your statement is just as un-evidenced as mine, so I'm uncertain why you seem to be so sure of your statement.

> Examining fantastical scenarios is a waste of time. No one has that button, there is a whole board of directors that votes on these things, and again, compensation is staggered over various performance targets staggered over a number of years. The proxy reports detailing these are easily accessible with an online search.

If I can reduce the number of shares, then I can increase EPS. Buybacks reduce the number of shares. The button clearly exists, and based on watching this happen it's clear that the button gets pressed pretty often.

> The businesses that have the best long term performance over the previous decades are the ones that have done the most buybacks, hence buybacks do not cause short term-ism

This is mixing up cause and effect. If I have lots of free cash flow, then I can do buybacks which increases EPS. Lots of free cash flow is associated with better performance, which is perhaps why people believe this.

Dividends are immediately taxable.

Stock buybacks are designed to let the shareholder see the same upside, but decide when to take the taxable event. Long term gains are also preferable to non-qualified dividends.

Even worse for non-American stockholders of American companies - the IRS charges a 30% foreign withholding tax on dividends. If you ban stock buybacks in favour of dividends, it’s a big tax increase on foreigners, so US stocks lose a whole pile of value for American stockholders when foreigners dump American equities until the ROI equalizes. (Roughly 20% of US equities are foreign-owned.)

They’ll funnel it through a US based shell company. C’mon now.

Sure, but there are still market impacts from e.g. banning buybacks and foreigners dumping AAPL to funnel their funds via BRK.

A big tech breakup needn't be anti-capitalist. In fact, it might be the most pro-capitalist move.

If you're an entrepreneur or VC, you want big tech broken up because they can put serious price pressure on your exit.

Trillion dollar companies can easily spin up a team to copy you, with no incentive to stay alive. They can threaten you with all kinds of leverage - access to customers, patents, legislators. They can give you an ultimatum to sell for cheap, go to your competitor, etc.

Their scale and reach is additional unexpected gravity on your delta V.

Capitalism is supposed to be hard. It isn't supposed to support invasive species that can graze anywhere they please and kill ecosystems of diversity and innovation. These mega conglomerates can just throw themselves into markets using unrelated business unit profit and suffocate real companies.

Breaking up Google and Amazon would be good for everyone, perhaps even shareholders and ICs at those companies themselves if value is unlocked. Let alone all of the other companies and entrepreneurs in the market.

I think it depends on which kind of entrepreneur you're aiming to be. VC breakups are amazing if your goal is to box in and become a market competitor. But as of the last decade or so there's been plenty of "incubators" to take into account. startups whose goal is instead to be sold off to some major company and get their payday that way. Those kinds of models would deteriorate, and are likely what want to prop Big Tech up.

I do hope we have more genuine competitors fighting out there for breakupps. But it's hard to say these days.

> But as of the last decade or so there's been plenty of "incubators" to take into account. startups whose goal is instead to be sold off to some major company and get their payday that way. Those kinds of models would deteriorate,

Good, because this is an extremely toxic and damaging version of capitalism

Every company should be seeking to stand on its own, not become assimilated by the borg

> how about re-banning stock buybacks?

This is pretend boogie man. Banning buybacks will not automatically make that money flow into hiring or salaries. Companies are not charities, they exist to make a return. If hiring people and/or paying more will generate a larger return than giving the money back to shareholders either through buybacks or dividends, then companies will do that.

AI is now giving companies something to do with excess cash that could generate better returns (shareholders believe so) and buybacks are being pushed out as money goes elsewhere[1].

[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/move-over-stock-buybacks-ai-1...

>Banning buybacks will not automatically make that money flow into hiring or salaries.

Nope, but that's what trends show us from the decades between its ban and bans being lifted. All I know is that companies flowing money back into itself and having executives shift in and out every few years clearly hasn't worked.

It's just one stepping stone to make sure companies have skin in the game again.

You can argue dividends but that means the money gets taxed quicker, so that also helps the people.

>AI is now giving companies something to do with excess cash that could generate better returns

Sure, for now. I think that problem will fix itself sooner than later, so I'm not too concerned about that. Trends come and go.

Why not just stop taxing dividends? CIT already has been paid on it, so why charge PIT on it? Like estonia.

That would mean there's no incentive for companies to buy back stock instead of dividends.