Skip to main content

Stock Buybacks



Thinking this through.

What happens to the value of shares of public stock if the company buys some of the stock back in the marketplace?

Think of it first as a simple accounting matter, and let's assume for simplicity's sake that the actual or potential buyers of the stock in the marketplace (who constitute the market demand) know and care about the book value on the balance sheet: that is, the equity as defined by the formula Assets - Liabilities = Equity.

Suppose the company has 1,000 shares of stock outstanding, each selling for $50. Its market capitalization, then, is $50,000. 

Now, it uses some of its own cash (an asset) to buy back some of the shares of stock. This decreases the amount of stock still available to a would-be buyer.  So if 100 shares are retired and 900 are left, as a first approximation -- assuming demand for the stock stays the same, we might well expect the value of those to increase to $55.55 per.

BUT something else has taken place, too. The company has depleted itself of cash. If it offered no premium on the market value of those shares, it bought 100 shares at $50 each, depleting itself of $5,000 worth of cash.

Since A - L = E, we would of course expect this hit to the asset side of the balance sheet to show up as a reduction in equity too. We've assumed the buyers care about such things. Why would the market not notice this and adjust for it?

Since the equity (book value) is reduced by the amount that the cash is reduced than the company is no longer worth $50,000: it is worth $45,000.

There are now 900 shares outstanding of stock in a company with a book value of $45,000. If that is reflected in the market value, then the market value will end up at: $50. Which is where we started.

Second approximation, then, the buyback should have no consequence at all for stock price, because the two effects one would immediately presume it will have (lessening the supply of the stock in circulation and lessening the book value of the company, thus the market demand for the stock) would exactly offset one another.  

As a third approximation, there is this: Palak Raval.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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...
24 comments
Read more

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 maj...
10 comments
Read more

The Growing Block Theory of Time

My own disposition, in regard to the philosophy of time, is toward the "growing block" theory. This is the view that past events remain realities, that present-moment events are also realities, but that future events are not yet real. The image is of the universe as a block with an edge on (say) the right-hand side. The block is expanding because that edge is moving ever further right, and that edge is what we call the present, or, simply, "now." Everything to the left of that edge is both static (the past is complete) and, still and forever, real. Think of the phrase "the moving finger writes." The chief alternatives to the growing-block theory are "presentism" (only the now-edge itself is real) and "eternalism" (past, present, and future are all real." I believe that time is a growing block because (1) that's what it feels like, (2) we should stick with the introspective phenomenon unless we have good reason to abandon ...
8 comments
Read more