[disgruntledphd2]

Sort of yes, but also no. He pays his employees with that stock, and it being higher makes that a better deal. Additionally, being valued as a growth company is much better than being a value stock.

Mind you, Im not interested in buybacks but if they paid a dividend I'd hold them till they lose their advertising business.

[bogomipz]

>"Additionally, being valued as a growth company is much better than being a value stock"

Could you elaborate, how does the buyback help them to be valued as a growth company? Also doesn't the fact that he paid for the buyback with employee layoffs really damage FB as a prospective employer when FB at some point in the future again needs to hire? What was the logic here?

[disgruntledphd2]

> how does the buyback help them to be valued as a growth company

Buybacks are what growth companies do, dividends are what value companys do (for whatever reason). But more generally, FB needed to show profit growth to go back up in value, and the easiest way to do that is lay off a bunch of people.

> Also doesn't the fact that he paid for the buyback with employee layoffs really damage FB as a prospective employer when FB at some point in the future again needs to hire? What was the logic here?

Maybe it does. But if they offer shedloads of money, I can't see people worrying about. For context, FB performance reviews are hardcore, so it's not like people were resting and vesting there. I dunno what his real logic was (I left in 2018), but the above seems reasonable, to me, at least.