this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2023
135 points (95.9% liked)

Technology

59656 readers
3028 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Apple has plowed over $500 billion into stock buybacks since 2012 — more than Visa, JPMorgan, or Exxon are worth::Only eight companies in the S&P 500 have larger market values than Apple's outlay on share repurchases over the last decade.

top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] xenomor 27 points 1 year ago (4 children)
[–] girlfreddy 22 points 1 year ago

It used to be before Reagan's gov't recinded the rules so wealth would trickle down to us in the form of piss.

[–] Dnn 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What should? Stock buybacks? Why?

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

It's usually done to basically pay to increase companies own stock price. They often do it because CEO and executive pay is based on achieving certain goals such as stock price. However, every penny thrown at investors in a buy back is money that could have been used to weather a downturn, or increase employee pay or simply reinvested in the company itself. This often leads to companies then requiring government bailouts to continue functioning when say a global pandemic hits. The Plain Bagel has more detailed video on the ups and downs of stock buybacks on YouTube.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

While absolutely true and I believe it should be illegal, Apple is not exactly strapped for cash. If there is one company that could afford buybacks, without hurting their investments, payroll, r&d, hell, even their bottom line hardly budges with these buybacks. They had 166B profit in the last 12 months...

[–] dirkle 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is there no scenario in which a company could buy back their stocks? Or are companies that offer stock forever stuck with never getting those back? That would kill a lot of opportunities for companies to start up, expand their business, or take advantage of other opportunities to grow. You can't always get money from a bank loan.

[–] Chunk -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Don't bother. They've most likely only ever heard about stock buybacks on social media with little context otherwise. They have no idea the pros of buybacks, only a politically-charged subset of cons.

[–] girlfreddy 5 points 1 year ago

Prior to Reagan allowing changes, buying back stock wasn't allowed because it was seen as a manipulation of the stock market.

"Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana

[–] sirboozebum 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Stock buy backs are a tax efficient way to return money to stockholders.

The real issue is when companies borrow money to do this.

[–] SpacetimeMachine 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I would say stock buybacks are already a real issue, doesn't matter if they're borrowing the money or not. If companies had to actually invest in their employees instead of their rich shareholders a lot of issues in our society today would be lessened.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

I don't think this applies here. Apple running out of cash isn't really a risk right now.

[–] EmperorGormet 4 points 1 year ago

Because people don’t understand how things actually work.

[–] Gold_E_Lox 2 points 1 year ago

perhaps, instead of allowing and disallowing specific items one can and cannot do, we should change the system that supports this behaviour?

[–] dirkle -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why? It's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. The company sold stock to raise money. No reason they shouldn't be able to buy back the stock they sold with the money they made.

[–] EmperorGormet 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They didn’t sell stock to raise money to buy their stock, that doesn't make sense. They sell stock when they feel they need cash and/or they think they are fair/over valued. They buy stock when they have excess cash and/or feel they are undervalued. They also have to disclose both sales and purchases beforehand.

[–] dirkle 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I can see how my reply could be interpreted that way but that was not the intention. I meant they sell stock to raise money to fund their business, expansions, etc. Not to raise money just to buy their stock back.