Buy backs are just another way of returning money to shareholders, same as dividends are. Dividends for some reason don't seem to encounter the same wrath. Excess cash at the corporate level could theoretically be used for growth, but what if you don't have any enticing growth opportunties? What if you're a large bank or multinational like GE? Are you supposed to just shovel money out on something you hope grows your business? I personally don't think that makes a lot of sense. The better strategy is to return capital to shareholders to help keep your stock competitive with the "growth" companies in tech and other industries that actually have good growth avenues. The most acute illustration of this is our large oil companies here before the pandemic. It's moronic to invest in growth here because you literally can't send your production anywhere so the only other thing you can do with your excess cash is to return it to shareholders. You can argue about whether dividends or buybacks are better/more efficient, but it's not clear to me at all that buy backs are some giant scam to enrich executives while dividends are not. If you feel your stock is undervalued it makes sense to buy your own shares. And the executives and board members of these companies own massive chunks of shares so any dividend increase is a direct raise to them personally so they profit either way. Buy backs have become this weird boogeyman and I don't really understand it.
|