[Tuna-Fish]

4. Those who intend to re-invest all returns in to the stock, who avoid a taxable event when their ownership of the company goes up without having to first pay tax for the dividend.

A stock buyback rewards all stockholders equally. Those who sell, get their reward in cash. Those who do not sell, get their reward in the proportion of their ownership of the company going up.

[badpun]

> Those who do not sell, get their reward in the proportion of their ownership of the company going up.

This is incorrect. If the company buys back say $100m worth of its stock, it's true that the individual shares remaining represent a larger fraction of the company, BUT the company itself is worth $100m less after the transaction (because it has spent that $100m on purchase of something that can't be added to the balance sheet - basically incinerated that money from company's point of view, similarly to how paying out dividends is "destroying" money). These two factors cancel out perfectly, and the book value per share remains unchanged.

[nyeah]

That's only true if the company pays book value for the shares.

I'm upvoting because you're advancing the discussion for sure.

[badpun]

You're right, I missed that! But, essentially this makes the case for buybacks even worse - paying over book value for shares means that the company is reducing its book value via the buyback. So, it's worth less after the buyback.

[nyeah]

Yes. Book value is just one metric for value, but let's keep using it. I could also say that paying less than book value is increasing the book value, so the company is worth more after the buyback. As you say, it depends on the purchase price.

[nyeah]

There is supply and demand to consider. Buybacks create a tendency toward higher share prices, but only while they continue. That demand cuts off when the buybacks stop.

If the buybacks are at a discount to whatever the stock turns out to have been worth at the time, then that benefits all the shareholders. That can be a great use of money for all shareholders.

But buybacks at inflated prices benefit only exiting shareholders. Exiting shareholders tend to include hired management. Of course nobody really knows the valuation that well, so obviously there's a guessing game.

This is pretty hard to argue against for anybody who agrees that valuation is a thing at all.

[jstanley]

> Buybacks create a tendency toward higher share prices, but only while they continue.

Buybacks increase the share price because you have a company that is worth (for sake of argument) the same as it was worth before, except now there are fewer shares available.

A fixed market cap divided by fewer shares equals a higher share price.

In the limit case imagine buying back all but 1 share. Now that 1 share represents the entire value of the company, so the share price would equal the market cap.

[mitthrowaway2]

The company is worth a bit less after the buyback, because it's given away some of its money, which was part of its valuation. But the effect should still be positive on the share price.

[jstanley]

Good point.

[andrewlgood]

Buybacks do not necessarily create an increase in stock price. Economically no value has been created. Cash on a balance sheet has simply been exchanged for shares. The people selling their shares in the buyout get the "value" of the company at that moment. The remaining shareholders now own a larger percentage of a smaller company i.e. a company that no longer has the cash used for the buyout.

Markets tend to reward companies that use buybacks as there is a belief the buybacks are a demonstration of discipline by the management team. Conceptually COMPANIES SHOULD BUY BACK STOCK IF THEY DO NOT HAVE BETTER ROI PROJECTS IN THE PIPELINE. This frequently happens in mature industries.

As noted above, buybacks are another means to return cash to investors. Today, in the US, the tax rate on qualified dividends and long-term capital gains are equivalent for most shareholders. This has not always been the case. When tax rates for capital gains are lower than dividends, buybacks are a more efficient means to return capital to investors.

Buybacks also allow for more tax planning. When dividends are issued, the investors have to pay taxes on them at that time. Stock buybacks allow investors to choose when they want to pay taxes. They can sell into the buyback and pay taxes now or hold the stock and pay taxes at a later time.

Buybacks are can be part of normal corporate capitalization decisions - what is the appropriate debt to equity ratio for the company.

Finally, changing dividend levels has its own impact on stock price. If a company increases its dividend, them market expects it to remain increased. In this case the stock price goes up as investors expect more dividends in the future. When a company cuts its dividend (rare event), the stock price drops dramatically as the market punishes company not only for the reduced expectation of future dividends but also because companies only cut dividends when they are having severe problems. Some companines issue a special dividend related to a one-time event such as selling a division. The stock price does not do much in these events.

All of this is to say that stock buybacks are not why corporations reduced basic research investment. I was at GE watching the famous research centers getting cut. The bottom line was the research coming out of the centers was not creating a meaningful ROI. At one point the researchers went to the various GE businesses looking for projects where their expertise could add value - an internal consulting group. They gave up after a year as there was so little success. Corporate research centers are expensive. They need to earn their keep.

[prewett]

That only works if the stock buyback increases the price permanently. Intel stock buybacks at $50 don't look so great now, but the dividends you got are still worth the same.

Buybacks of overpriced stocks also do not benefit investors.

[triceratops]

> Those who intend to re-invest all returns in to the stock

Sell the stock then use the gains to buy the stock? I'm very confused by this.

> without having to first pay tax for the dividend

Long term capital gains and dividends are taxed at the same rate. The only tax-free way to benefit from a higher share price (that I know of) is to borrow against it.

> get their reward in the proportion of their ownership of the company going up.

Which only matters if the company pays dividends, or the shareholders eventually sell.

[Tuna-Fish]

The company has some money. They choose to return it to shareholders. There are two legal ways to do so: Buy back some stock, or issue a dividend.

Now assume I am a long-term investor, who invested money into a company, and wants to keep all that money in the company, instead of taking money out.

If the company pays a dividend, I can put the money they paid me back into the company, but I have to pay capital income tax on the money in between. If they buy back some stock, I have essentially fully reinvested my money to grow my share of ownership in that company, but I have not paid any tax on this, and will only have to do so at the end. As I get to grow compound interest on my money, I will come out much better in the long term.

[rjmunro]

I'm not sure about this bit:

> As I get to grow compound interest on my money, I will come out much better in the long term.

You will pay the capital gains tax rate either way. Either when you buy 15% less additional shares, or when you sell them at the end and pay the 15% then.

If you start with 15% less and compound it, you still end with 15% less.

(15% is just an example)

You might be placing a bet that at some point in the future there will be a reduction the capital gains rate, but, as far as I can see, you are not earning more due to compounding.

[barchar]

The other tax-free way to benefit is to sell while your in the (fairly generous) 0% capital gains bracket

[triceratops]

That bracket also applies to qualified dividends.