Skip to main content

Stock Buybacks

Image result for Chuck Schumer

There has been a good deal of talk lately about "stock buybacks."

This is because, if I understand the situation, the Republicans want to give money to various businesses to get them through the coronavirus problem. The Democrats respond, NOT "subsidies are wrong in principle" (given the history, that seems an unlikely position for them to take, though these days anything is possible) -- rather their response is "we'll go along with the bail-outs to your buddies, so long as various strings are attached which we can pretend are pro-worker strings."

I just want to say that on this point the Republicans have a case.

Let's not talk or act as if there's never a good reason for a company to buy its stock back. Example: a management may have a good faith belief that its stock is undervalued by the market, and thus due for an upswing. It may also face a situation in which, before that upswing can happen, it faces a takeover threat from a corporate raider on the Icahn mold.

Our hypothetical managers may rightly deem that the best thing they can do for their shareholders is to resist the raider by buying back some of the stock (from the open market not from the raider himself), raising the price of the stock to a point in which further accumulation becomes unattractive and the raid is abandoned.

Notice that in that hypothetical I didn't mention whether or not the company had recently been bailed out by the government. Bailouts are wrong. Contrary to the implication of Schumer et al, that wrong does not become right, or even less wrong, by being attached to irrational strings such as a "no stock buybacks" rule. Peace out.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak