SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Network Associates (NET) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Baggins who wrote (5415)6/30/1999 12:49:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 6021
 
Baggins, this is what I think you are missing. Repurchasing stock simply to boost earnings per share is pointless. Consider the company as a whole - forget about shares for the moment. Under these theoretical circumstances, a dividend (which is all that a stock repurchase really is) makes sense only if the company has surplus cash and no good place to put the cash. In essence, it is a return of capital. The only reason for such returns is that there is no alternate use of the cash that will provide the company a return at least equal to the weighted average cost of capital (WACC). But the value of the company (again, forget about shares) is determined by the expected free cash flow generated from operations. This has not changed by the dividend. Thus, the capitalized value of the company ought to decrease by the amount of the "dividend". You would simply divide the capitalized value of the company by the number of shares to arrive at the value per share. The increase in eps is a result of this transaction, and when you consider the result on shareholder wealth you will see that it is a wash. I can provide the mathematics to demonstrate this if you wish.

From a real world perspective, one of the reason that companies engage in this tactic is purely psychological -- markets often react to these transactions by assuming that this is evidence of management's confidence in the future of the company.

But that raises a serious ethical issue. Management is privy to information that the ordinary shareholder does not have. You can be certain that the CEO and CFO and others know where sales are now, and know what potential contracts exists. So when the company buys its own stock on the basis of that knowledge it is pitting itself against shareholders. In other words, the concept of a willing buyer and a willing seller falls apart because of the information disparity between management and shareholders.

Now getting back to NETA, it seems to me that there are much better uses of cash than to engage in a psychological ploy. Analysts have forecast a negative cash flow for the next quarter or two. Secondly, there seems to be evidence that NETA's R&D effort needs to be bolstered. So is this the time to start some kind of smoke and mirrors game?

Finally, let me leave you with a Machiavellian scenario. Suppose that management is attempting to boost the stock price simply to allow employee stock options (including management's) to finish in the money? I am not claiming that this is the reason, but just think about that as a possibility.

TTFN,
CTC