[wsetchell]

I don't get people's aversion to stock buybacks.

If a company has money it cannot productively spend, it should return that money to shareholders. Stock buybacks are a tax efficient way to do that.

The company believes the asset wasn't very profitable for them to own, so they sold it and gave the shareholders the money back.

[dpcx]

Could it not spend some portion of that money on research and development? I feel that literally any industry could find improvements.

[wsetchell]

To justify spending that money, they'd have to think they'd get better returns on their R&D than shareholders could get elsewhere (e.g. by just buying the S&P 500).

It is quite difficult to beat the S&P 500, and they're saying they don't have any ideas which can.

[jandrese]

If the shareholders don't think the R&D is going to be profitable then they can sell their own shares. It doesn't seem like the company should be making that decision for them.

More to the point, if the company is seeing such great profits then their competitors should be undercutting them. If they don't have competitors then maybe they should be regulated more like a utility and give that money back to the customers. Stock buybacks usually end up being just a handout to the rich, which they don't need.

[tinalumfoil]

> If the shareholders don't think the R&D is going to be profitable then they can sell their own shares

It's not that the companies aren't profitable, it's that past a certain point their money is more valuable as cash to their shareholders than anything the company could use it for.

[beervirus]

But the company management is in a better position than the shareholders to know whether the company can engage in profitable R&D.

[francescopnpn]

true and sad-reflective of the world's state (last 50y)

[imtringued]

Investors can decide to spend the returned money on a more innovative business.

[stainforth]

Some of the money should go to the workers

[beervirus]

It does, in salaries.