US politics general thread

[rietrot]

How does buying their own stock back from investors expand the value of the business?

Wtf? Is this a serious qeustion?

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Except that stock issues are not considered liabilities because there is no requirement to ever pay them back and dividends are paid at the discretion of the board.

At least they're (indirectly) admitting Trump and the Republicans lied, as usual. It's a start, maybe.

 

[The_Assimilator]

It's a liability on a company either way you look at it.

LMGTFY: https://www.quora.com/What-makes-a-common-stock-an-asset-or-a-liability

A stock is never a liability, neither for the company nor for the shareholder.

 

[rietrot]

So giving up equity in return for investment is not seen as a liability? Those stock have a face value and is pretty liquid. So investors can call in those stocks at any time if they wanted to. It's a liability on a company either way you look at it. It's the obvious thing to do when you come into to extra cash... You decrease your liabilities.

Okay, no, this isn't how stock work. It is a share, a partial ownership of the company. If the company buys back shares the total number of shares outstanding decrease and the remaining shareholders has more value. It isn't a liability. It is the equity.

 

[RanzB]

LMGTFY: https://www.quora.com/What-makes-a-common-stock-an-asset-or-a-liability

You see how the narrative shifted from:
White House says 70% of the cuts will be realised as wage increases, to
Why are stock buybacks bad?

Subtle, and we're all falling for it.

 

[rietrot]

Yeah. Fear of Brown People sounds a bit Pythonesque - except that it's pretty universal in poorly-educated Europeans.

I wonder what the Native Americans are thinking of all this? Should they have secured their borders earlier?

They probability should have. Shame it's so sad that they couldn't protect their lands against invaders with superior technology. Lets lern from this and not just allow new invaders in with open arms.

 

[RanzB]

They probability should have. Shame it's so sad that they couldn't protect their lands against invaders with superior technology. Lets lern from this and not just allow new invaders in with open arms.

Might is right. The Christian way.

 

[Cray]

So giving up equity in return for investment is not seen as a liability? Those stock have a face value and is pretty liquid. So investors can call in those stocks at any time if they wanted to.

You know that the face or par value for stock is usually extremely low or they don't even have a face value...

Some states require that companies cannot sell shares below the par value of these shares. To comply with state regulations, most companies set a par value for their stocks to a minimal amount. For example, the par value for shares of Apple, Inc. is $0.00001 and the par value for Amazon stock is $0.01.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/parvalue.asp

Stock can be be sold at any time any interested buyer on the open market, what they cannot do is go back to the issuing company and demand the market price of the share from the company in exchange for the stock. Am sure the company would be delighted to have the share back at par value though...

It's a liability on a company either way you look at it. It's the obvious thing to do when you come into to extra cash... You decrease your liabilities.

It's not a liability in any meaningful way because it doesn't get treated as such, there are no interest payments, no terms of payback and no obligation for the company to bay the stock holder back -it is a partial owneship of the company, it entitles the holder to vote for the board and to dividends but that's it. Have a look at the average bankruptcy case and see who gets paid out first, creditors or stockholders?

 

[Unhappy438]

You see how the narrative shifted from:
White House says 70% of the cuts will be realised as wage increases, to
Why are stock buybacks bad?

Subtle, and we're all falling for it.

Indeed, the argument isn't that buying stocks is good or bad for the company but that it was never the intended consequence of the tax cuts.

 

[Cray]

Wtf? Is this a serious qeustion?

Yes, care to answer? How does the outflow of assets (cash) in exchange for stock at market price expand the net value of the business?

 

[RanzB]

it was never the stated consequence of the tax cuts.

Ftfy. For some reason I think the WH knew that workers wouldn't see much of the tax cut as an increase in wages. Just call me cynical.

 

[Pitbull]

You know that the face or par value for stock is usually extremely low or they don't even have a face value...



https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/parvalue.asp

Stock can be be sold at any time any interested buyer on the open market, what they cannot do is go back to the issuing company and demand the market price of the share from the company in exchange for the stock. Am sure the company would be delighted to have the share back at par value though...



It's not a liability in any meaningful way because it doesn't get treated as such, there are no interest payments, no terms of payback and no obligation for the company to bay the stock holder back -it is a partial owneship of the company, it entitles the holder to vote for the board and to dividends but that's it. Have a look at the average bankruptcy case and see who gets paid out first, creditors or stockholders?

Apologies, you're correct.

I realized my mistake with rietrot's post.

Regaining equity when you have disposable income is still a good thing to do though. I don't se any wrong with it.

 

[rietrot]

Yes, care to answer? How does the outflow of assets (cash) in exchange for stock at market price expand the net value of the business?

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042015/why-would-company-buyback-its-own-shares.asp

.

 

[rietrot]

Ftfy. For some reason I think the WH knew that workers wouldn't see much of the tax cut as an increase in wages. Just call me cynical.

Everybody has their pension money in shares, everybody benefits.

 

[RanzB]

Everybody has their pension money in shares, everybody benefits.

Lol. How weak is this. "Your wage increase is coming in the form of elevated share prices in pension stocks"

Jesus, is there anything Trumpites won't fall for or defend?

 

[rietrot]

You see how the narrative shifted from:
White House says 70% of the cuts will be realised as wage increases, to
Why are stock buybacks bad?

Subtle, and we're all falling for it.

Wage increases are still coming. It is market related and they have very low unemployment so soon they'll have to start paying people more. This is basic economics, your criticism is really stupid.

 

[RanzB]

Wage increases are still coming.

:crylaugh: Any day now hey?

 

[RanzB]

Trump asks supporters, ‘What other country has judges?’

“They came to me three days ago. ‘Sir, we’d like you to sign this order.’ What is the order? ‘We need five thousand judges on the border.’ I said, ‘Judges?’ What other country has judges? I said, ‘How many do we have now?’ They didn’t even know. So we have thousands of judges and now we’re going to have five thousand. Now, I’ve done a good job with judges, Judge Gorsuch, Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch. [Trump at this point went on a tangent about his greatness on picking judges, before returning to the subject at hand.]

“But they come up, and this was an order, this was – ‘Sir, we need five thousand judges.’ I said, ‘Five thousand?’ So, we put a judge on like on the bench, federal, it takes us weeks to vet, it takes us a long time to get the judges, one – we’re talking about one person. And they want five thousand, I said, ‘Where are you going to find five thousand people to be judges? How many do we have now?’ ‘I don’t know the number.’ They don’t even know the number, even though they’re in charge, OK? Nobody knows the number. We have thousands of judges already.”

t’s important to understand the unavoidable fact that Trump has no idea what he’s talking about.

First, literally no one involved in this process has recommended an additional 5,000 immigration judges. The president keeps repeating the number, but it’s entirely made up.

Second, the actual proposal was for a few hundred additional immigration judges, and that idea was endorsed by his own White House.

Third, there are 334 immigration judges currently serving, so when Trump said, “Nobody knows the number,” it’s because he’s too lazy to check.

The Republican choice for President of the United States.

 

[rietrot]

:crylaugh: Any day now hey?

Probably 2+ years for the labour market in the US to really benifit from the tax cuts and import tariffs.

 

[RanzB]

Probably 2+ years for the labour market in the US to really benifit from the tax cuts and import tariffs.