Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Pastimes : The Big Picture - Economics and Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Arik T.G. who wrote (646)	11/2/2000 1:55:23 PM
From: Don Lloyd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 686

ATG - The company reported net earnings of $1B (lets assume that cashflow from operations is the same), but its number of shares is unchanged, and its net assets are $500 Million smaller then last year because they had to pay for the stock they bought. There is no new asset in the balance sheet which the $1.5B paid for, only avoiding the dilution by new stock arising from employees' options. The function of the $1.5B buyback is the same as $1.5B increase in the wages paid by that company, but it does not show in its income statement as wages would have. This company does not create value, it actually lost $500 Million for that year. Where did the $1.5B difference disappeared into? Functions and explanations don't matter, only actions do. All of the actions have to be considered separately, before coming up with a net result, which is usually not possible. 1. The company has granted options to its employees for any or all of a number of reasons, but they all (ignoring alignment of worker incentives with company performance)boil down to being competitive in the labor markets to succeed in recruitment and retention, and doing so at a lower cost than if only cash salaries and bonuses were paid. This is a fiduciary responsibility of management to make judgements to maximize the value for shareholders. 2. The decision to buy back stock is essentially the same as for any other investment. There is always one range of stock prices low enough to provide a higher projected return to shareholders than any alternate investment and there is always another range of stock prices high enough to rule out buybacks. Again, this all has to be justified from the POV of the shareholders, who are the owners of the funds used in the buyback. 3. Being an investment, the $1.5B cannot and does not appear on the income statement. It may be a horrible investment, but the $1B in earnings still remains. 4. Both salary expenses and stock dilution are real costs to shareholders. Regards, Don