[scolson]

Buyback programs are at the then-current publicly traded rates. They aren't generally at some magical premium, or else the whole trading price of the stock would go up even more.

Most people selling their shares in a company do not know who is on the buying side, and that is generally the case here. This goes for retail and institutional investors. And the buy-back programs are done slowly to avoid slippage, which can make it even harder to track down in the moment.

Someone who wanted to sell was selling anyway. They don't profit any more than their gains (or losses) already covered. The people who get "value" are the ones who did NOT sell their shares, and their "value" is only realized down the road when they do eventually sell.

[qeternity]

I appreciate the lesson, I spent my whole career as a hedge fund trader so I’m familiar.

I’m not sure what this has to do with anything? Why does it have to be at a premium? What in gods green earth are you on about? What difference does it make if you know or don’t know who the buyer is??

Those who want to sell can sell (buybacks are programmatic) and those who don’t can benefit from appreciation.

[imheresamir]

You said:

> Who do you think they are buying the shares from? It literally directly puts money in the pockets of investors.

He's trying to explain to you why stock buybacks don't "literally directly put money in the pockets of investors". If your shares are sold back to the company as part of the buyback you are 1) no longer an investor obviously, and 2) have not realized any gains as a result of the buyback. Investors who did not sell see their shares appreciate, which is different from "putting money in their pockets"

[qeternity]

Seriously? You’re going to defend someone’s complete lack of understanding of market dynamics by making a pedantic stand that someone who sold their shares no longer qualifies as an investor?

Well for one, that presupposes that investors sell all of their shares at the same time, which they rarely do. So, I have 100 shares and I sell 10 back to the company. I receive 10 shares worth of cash directly from the company and I still have 90 left thus qualifying me as an investor under your definition.

And secondly, your entire premise is absurd. By your definition, a dividend isn’t a company returning cash to investors because by the time they issue the dividend, it’s no longer their cash, it’s the investors.

You guys just don’t understand this stuff. The real world just doesn’t work the way you imagine it.

[imheresamir]

Can you answer the question "who gets money literally put in their pockets as a result of a stock buyback?"

Hint: the answer is... no one. Investors who held see the value of their holdings increase, again, different from "cash in your pocket"

[qeternity]

> Can you answer the question "who gets money literally put in their pockets as a result of a stock buyback?"

The investors who sold the shares to the company. Markets aren’t some magical entity that conjure shares out of thin air.

If a company buys back 10 shares, they buy those 10 shares back from an investor who wants to sell 10 shares. That investor now has cash literally in their pocket.

How do you think this stuff works? Where do you think the money goes when companies spend on buybacks?

[imheresamir]

The investors who sold shares to the company did so at the then-current publicly traded share price. I bet they wish they didn't since the stock value increased after the sale. These investors who sold did not benefit from the sale any more than they would have selling on the open market in a non-buyback situation. Hope that makes it clear!