this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2023
602 points (99.0% liked)

DRS Your GME

1229 readers
2 users here now

ΔΡΣ Central

Community to discuss the DRSGME.org project and resources, and how to spread DRS advocacy and information to GameStop investors around the world.

Have a great idea to spread the word? There are some resources here to get started!

https://www.drsgme.org/free-resources

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cosmicrookie 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Their customers then, are the shareholders and not the people who buy their products or services. What happens if they lose the shareholders? If the company already is making enough money to support it self, what is the need for shareholders?

[–] Aux 8 points 11 months ago

If the company is publicly traded and has shareholders, then it doesn't have enough money to support itself. When you're buying a share in the company, what you're effectively doing is giving such company a loan. And you expect your money back. Plus interest.

Let's imagine a very simplified example. Company X plans to produce goods valued at $1,000 and they need $990 to produce them (that uncludes all the operational costs like materials, wages, taxes, marketing, etc). They aim for 1% profit margin ($10) at the end of they year. The problem? X management only has $900 in cash. So how can they achieve their goal? One option would be to fire some people, produce less goods and earn less money. Another option would be to seek investment for $90.

Again, this is a very simplified example. So, they go public and create shares which they value at $90. You go and them. Everything looks great, right?

Now the year passes. Balance at the start was $900 + $90 = $990. Then they spend $990 on manufacturing and their balance became $990 - $990 = $0.

X had a great year, they sold everything, there were no issues, happy days! So, $0 + $1,000 = $1,000. But you ask for your loaned money back. So, $1,000 - $90 = $900. And they can't produce $1,000 worth of goods next year, because they lack your $90.

What X needs to do is to either increase their profit margin in some way to cover your loan or find a way not to give your money back to you. In short, they are either now permanent slaves to shareholders or they need HUGE profit margin, which is not always possible. And when you start factoring in taxes, inflation, reserve funds, etc, company liability just grows sky high.

The reality is that running a business is very hard. US has tens of millions of registered companies and corporations. But you only hear about a few rich outliers in the news. Because majority of them are barely surviving.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If they lose the shareholders? That only means shareholders are seeking their shares, they go to another shareholder or are getting bought back by the company... If everyone is selling then the share price is driven down (too much offer) and the company might end up getting delisted from major exchanges, it doesn't mean they don't make a good product or whatever, but if everyone is jumping ship then there usually is a reason for it...

The company makes profit from shareholders only when it's their own shares that they're selling or when new shares are being bought, so initial offering, subsequent offerings (increasing the total number of shares that exist, current shareholders might not appreciate it). Going back to being private after finding success (buying back all the shares on the market) is usually so expensive that it's not something the company will consider doing, especially at that means depending on private investments to raise capital instead of being able to simply sell shares owned by the company or emit more shares.

[–] cosmicrookie 3 points 11 months ago (3 children)

But following the line of thought, where growth is being seeked for the sake of investors, denying that growth, would make the prices fall making it cheaper to buy them back. If a company stops trying to grow after it has found success, established itself and makes a good or even extremely high profit, wouldn't it be best to just stop growing and let investors seek other companies that seek to grow?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Sure but investors have a say in how the company manages its finances so they won't vote in favor of crashing the share price so the company can buy them back for cheap!

In a better market investors would expect their profit from well established companies to come from dividends and the share price would be fairly stable so investors looking for high profits would sell shares from established companies with stable dividends to people who want safe investments and would move on to growing companies where they could potentially make profit from the share price increasing rapidly until the company reaches a point where it's stable...

That exists, plenty of huge companies that pay good dividends with share prices that are moving at snail pace (look at the share price of IBM vs Apple for the last 25 years or so), but these days that's not what investors want, they expect profit from the line going up and selling their shares 🤷

Even then, just like you expect a pay increase to follow inflation, people expect their profit from a company to go up with time, may it be from the price going up or from dividends increasing...

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

Companies do not generally go public and start offering shares just for the fun of it. They need that influx of money from the initial offering for one reason or another. A company's overall margin is also generally not very large, especially compared to its market cap, which is what would need to be bought back. Amazon's profit of ~10 billion is trivial in comparison to their market cap of 1.5 trillion. Even their total annual revenue is still only about a tenth of that. They'd need to shrink by at least an order of magnitude for a buyback to even be possible, let alone plausible.

TL;DR: It is extraordinarily rare for a publicly traded company to have the cash flow necessary to consider buying itself back.

[–] Aqarius 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

IIRC, in the US, a CEO's job is maximising shareholder value, and failing to do so is malpractice.

[–] cosmicrookie 1 points 11 months ago

When you put it like that, it almost sounds like a scam

[–] TipRing 1 points 11 months ago

The fiduciary responsibility is a little misunderstood. The CEO can't intentionally run the business into the ground but can do things like post short term losses in order to reinvest in development or restructuring, they can be honest when paying their taxes and so forth. The law doesn't require CEOs to be total sociopaths, they do that part all on their own.