A corporation is owned by its shareholders. Not letting a company return profits to shareholders through dividends and buybacks is expropriation.
They write that "Nearly 85 percent of all stocks owned by Americans belong to the wealthiest 10 percent of households", but this ignores the private and public pension funds that own stocks on behalf of workers. Already many of the public pension funds are underfunded, and reducing stock returns will worsen the underfunding.
a staggering figure and the highest amount ever authorized in a single year.
So freaking what? That's like saying, "If you don't own any stock you don't get and dividends!" and that ain't fair!............
I agree, workers need to be shareholders (not necessarily of their employer) so they can benefit as well.
Democrats once again prove they’re incompetent at just about anything other than incompetence.
Eventually their goal is to redefine the legal meaning of “corporation” to give it social goals which will surpass profit on the priority list.
There’s plenty of reasons to question corporate managers who can’t think of anything better to invest in than their own shares. The obvious fact that they usually are compensated with stock options that rise in value with the share prices further renders the practice questionable.
But there’s absolutely NO reason why Chuck Schumer should be making that decision. It’s between the shareholders and the board and the management, and not really anyone else’s business.
SOS: “I see you have some money there. Give it to me.”
This is a crisis???? You have got to be kidding me. Placing limitations on what companies can do with their own capital??? THAT is what communism looks like, my friends!!!!! Not no, but HELL NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stock buy backs have proven to be a stupid and wasteful exercise. I saw recently that IBM and GE both have lost many $ billions on their buybacks
But even more stupid are Schumer and Sanders trying to micromanage what privately-owned companies and their investors do.
1. So what if a company buying back its stocks doesnt benefit the vast majority of americans? Since when has that ever been a mandatory reason for a business to do anything? Rejected.
2. Buying back stocks keeps the company in control of itself rather than at the interest of people who might try to take it over for their own interests (ex arbitrage) or shift its movement negatively.
3. A company has a total right to reduce or increase the number of stocks it has out there, buyback doesnt force anyone to turn in stocks they would rather keep, unless they were sold with some kind of buyback arangement clause.
Its just more fascism socialism demonizing and trying to control private business. At the same time these very same assh0les invest in the stocks and have retirement plans that invest in the stocks of the companies they rail against.
Capitalism works because money is directed where it is needed by the market. Stopping buy backs is interfering with the normal course of the market redirecting money where it is needed. The government has a proven track record or failure when it comes to allocating resources.
I would think a company would not buy there own stock back if the company sucked.
The $1T didn't disappear. Where did it go?
It is my understanding that a buyback of stock is generally a good sign that a company is doing well, but isn't ready to invest in itself with equipment updates, expansion, etc.
Go to hell NYT.
Schumer and Sanders. Sounds like a shister law firm.
-PJ
Two questions:
1. Who is more efficient at deploying resources and capital, Amazon or the US Government?
2. Who then is best able to make decisions about how to maximize return on capital expenditures, Amazon or the US Government?
I rest my case.
From where I sit, that's a good thing. And the stock buybacks are good, too.
When a company goes public, its sale of stock raises money for the company to invest. Obviously, the people who do that believe in the market they are selling products into, and in the ability of their company to compete in that market.What if a company management no longer sees a value proposition in betting on their ability to prosper in that market?
If you think you can, or you think you can't, you're probably right. - Henry Ford Chuck Schumer and Bernie Sanders amply illustrate the validity of Adam Smith’s observation that
The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.