Someone sent me a diatribe from some progressive about the evil of share buybacks. I have a few thoughts.
First the claims: they allow companies to inflate share prices, top management to manipulate share prices to maximize the value of options, divert money from long-term investment, and allow for tax avoidance. I’ll start with the tax story.
Buybacks, as opposed to dividends, do allow shareholders to avoid paying taxes as long as they hold their stock. This is a gift to rich people, but let’s not get carried away on the size of the gift.
First, as many progressives (including me) complain, shares typically turn over very quickly. That is one reason many of us support a financial transactions tax – to reduce the volume of pointless trading.
You don’t get to both complain about shares turning over all the time and that rich people never pay taxes because they hold their shares forever.
It’s true that some rich people do hold their shares until death, but even the Waltons must occasionally sell some shares to cover their living expenses. Anyhow, this is a real issue (could be addressed by taxing unrealized capital gains), but let’s not exaggerate its size.
On the question of long-term investment, I’m not at all impressed with the evidence. Do we think that companies would invest more if they paid out money to shareholders as dividends?
If the point is that the more money companies pay out to shareholders (as either dividends or buybacks), the less they invest, sure that is almost definitionally true. But this begs the question.
Are they paying out money to shareholders because they don’t see good investment opportunities or whether they aren’t taking advantage of good investment opportunities because they're paying out so much money to shareholders? I am strongly inclined to believe the former is true.
Now let’s ask about inflating the share price. Suppose a stock sells for $100 and it is expected to earn $5 a share until the end of time. What happens if the company uses its full $5 in earnings to buy back stock.
The buyback critics tell us this would drive up the share price. In a limited sense this will almost certainly be true. Suppose that we now have 5% fewer shares outstanding. This means that if we have the same price-to-earnings ratio, then the price per share will be 5% higher.
But how is this “inflating” the share price? The price to earnings ratio would be exactly the same after the buyback as before. What’s the problem?
We can tell a story that buybacks actually increase the price-to-earnings ratio. PEs have been unusually high in the last two decades, so this is not an implausible story on its face, even though believers in efficient market theory would say it’s impossible.
If buybacks do in fact drive up PEs, it would benefit top management, who will get more money for their options, and disadvantage future shareholders who will have to pay more money for each dollar of earnings, meaning that they will get lower returns on the stock they buy.
Current shareholders will be largely indifferent to a rise in PE, since they have little reason (apart from tax considerations) to prefer money paid to them in higher share prices as opposed to dividends.
In this story, buybacks are effectively a tool used by top management to gain at the expense of future shareholders, with current shareholders being indifferent.
This raises the last point, top management using buybacks to manipulate stock prices to maximize the value of their options. This strikes me as a very plausible story, but it has important implications.
If top management is manipulating stock prices to increase the value of their options, it implies they are ripping off their companies. After all, if the shareholders wanted the CEO and other top executives to get more money, they could have just paid them more money.
The manipulation story implies that they are taking money that the shareholders, or their agent, the board of directors, did not intend them to have.
The manipulation story also means that the claim that the company is being run to maximize returns to shareholders is not true. In this case, the shareholders should be allies in efforts to rein in CEO pay.
To my view, reining in CEO pay is very important because of the distorting effect it has on pay structures throughout the economy. A world where CEOs get paid $2M (like in the good old days) is very different than today’s world where they get paid $20 M.
This leaves the moral of the evil buyback story as being that we need to crack down on CEOs ripping off their companies and bring their pay down to earth… [END]

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Dean Baker

Dean Baker Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @DeanBaker13

16 Sep
Only 5 states have lower death rates than Germany, Maine, VT, WY, Hawaii, and Alaska. (3 Blue and 2 Red)
This will be waaay over Donnie Boy's head, but the reason states like NY, MA, and IL have high death rates is because they lots of international travel and Trump did nothing to prevent people from Europe from coming here and spreading the pandemic in February.
It is also important that the people in MN, WI, MI, NV, PA, and NC know that Donald Trump doesn't give a damn that they die.
Read 4 tweets
11 Jul
Powell's comment on Fed bank accounts didn't get one millionth of the attention it deserved, He effectively said that households could save tens of billions if we let them have accounts at the Fed, but we shouldn't allow it because it would hurt the banks (thread)
Imagine that our trade economists told us that we could save billions on cars by outsourcing the production to developing countries with cheap labor, but we shouldn't do that because it would hurt U.S. autoworkers.
It shows the wonderful double-standard at play in economic policy. When we can achieve greater efficiency at the expense of ordinary workers, it is absolutely imperative that we do it. You know -- we all love free trade.
Read 5 tweets
23 May
Someone has to explain slowly to NPR reporters that it is the "Democratic" Party. Tom Gjelten cited Trump saying that the "Democrat Party" doesn't want people to pray. (thread)
Apparently, it is too complicated for Donald Trump to learn the name of the other party. The way a reporter deals with this is that they highlight the error saying that "Donald Trump said that the quote 'Democrat' Party doesn't want people to pray." Or
They just refer to the statement and point out that Donald Trump had mistakenly referred to the Democratic Party as the Democrat Party.
Read 5 tweets
26 Apr
Everyone should remember that in the middle of the Great Recession, Mitch McConnell said that his job was to make sure than Obama was a one-term president. (1/2)
That's right, McConnell explicitly said that he did not see hos job as getting the U.S. out of the Great Recession and workers back on their feet as quickly as possible, he saw his job as making Obama look bad so that he wouldn't be re-elected.
So we can believe that Mitch McConnell somehow had a late life conversion and is now concerned about the good of the country or we can believe that he is still pursuing his political agenda and couldn't care less about what is good for the country.
Read 4 tweets
11 Apr
Can we trust Dr. Fauci? Someone raised this question earlier. It is an interesting one. (Thread)
Donald Trump effectively makes everyone around him liars. To hold a top position in his administration you obviously have to be a shameless sycophant, constantly praising Trump's great leadership. But we know this about Pence, Mulvaney, Meadows, and other top people.
Trump also got people like Gov. Newsom in CA & Cuomo in NY to praise his handling of the crisis even when their states were obviously suffering from a lack of federal support.
Read 9 tweets
8 Apr
I see some bizarre things here defending Trump, so I’m going to make a few points as to why his efforts dealing with the pandemic have been unbelievably terrible (thread).
First, don't waste a second saying “what about Cuomo?” or whoever. People can evaluate their performances, but they are irrelevant to Trump’s disastrous failure. Trump is president, he has the CDC, FEMA, & he would have had a pandemic prevention task force, if he didn’t fire them
People, including apparently Trump’s own trade representative, were warning of the spread of coronavirus as early as mid-January. Trump trivialized the disease and literally mocked public figures and the media for raising concerns.
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!