zlacker

The point is that they are good for management, share prices and share holders. The economy is made of more than just those groups.

>>hef198+(OP)
Stock buybacks are good for the economy because they allocate money to where it can be used more efficiently, which is usually not in existing big corporations.

The alternative to stock buybacks is that the corporation make stupid acquisitions and try to integrate them into their processes, thereby killing them.

>>hef198+(OP)
They are also good for everybody else, because they incentivise investment that grows the economy, which means rising real wages.

>>konsch+f1
Now that you link stock buybavks to growing salaries, I cannot ignore it anymore.

Stock buybacks only benefit shareholders and companies, not the economie. Trickle down and all that doesn't work, stock buybacks reduce a companies tax burden, especially when leveraged which they often are, do not lead to more investment. And they make the rich even richer.

See, for example, here:

https://hbr.org/2020/01/why-stock-buybacks-are-dangerous-for...

And salaries rise, primarily, through labour organization and collective bargaining.

>>hef198+C2
This...exactly

>>hef198+C2
Stock buybacks are not “trickle down” economics. It’s returning money to investors who then have to rebalance their portfolios and find something new to invest in. This is what is good for the economy.

>>konsch+Y
The closest alternative to buybacks is dividends. But to be honest I'm not sure if that's what the critics want the money going.

>>jowea+z5
Stock buybacks and dividends are the same thing economically, I mean both when I say “stock buybacks”. The difference is only in taxation.

>>konsch+Y
Shouldn’t the money be used more efficiently for society’s benefit or not concentrated by the share holders? Share holders will only further their own interests and not society’s interests.

>>sumuyu+Pf
How do you accomplish that? Historically "shareholders" as a group have been quite effective (often but obviously not always) have been quite effective at using at their money for society’s benefit.

In fact every society which tried to take all of their money away and eliminate them as a class (more or less violently) has failed economically. Turns out when it works properly free market competition is strongest force for economic and technological progress that has ever existed.

>>hef198+C2
In theory (and sometimes/often in reality) it results in more effective allocation of capital. It's not about "trickle down "econonomics"" but about those investors using that money to invest into more productive businesses.

> And salaries rise, primarily, through labour organization and collective bargaining.

No. Supply and demand is and pretty much always was a much stronger force.

>>hef198+C2
If I get RSUs quarterly and my company additionally buys back 10% of stock. My post vest RSUs should also be worth 10% more. This is effectively a bonus and my tax obligation would be lower than cash.

I'm all for it as a employee AND a shareholder.

>>kortil+t4
> It’s returning money to investors

I believe the parent commenter's point was exactly this. Giving money to the investor class and expecting it to benefit everyone is the definition of trickle-down economics.

>>jehb+0C
The comparison is leaving it with the company and hoping something good comes out of it. That’s also trickle down economics by that moronic definition.