RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:This thing may as well be called Oil StoresFootballFan1 wrote:
Borrowing with the intent to buy back shares is not something any responsible company would do. Borrowing from a creditor involves much more than just making the debt payments on time. Debt covenants are usually attached (conditions a company must maintain in terms of cash flow, debt to equity, debt to EBIDTA, etc.) - If a debt covenant condition is breached, the lender makes a decision as to whether it is willing to relax a condition in exchange for remedial action by the borrower. Secondly, creditors who lend money want tangible collateral they have claim to should the borrower default on the loan - no sane lender would allow a company to borrow money with the premeditated intent of buying back shares since a reduction of shares provides no additional security should the company default and any common shares become worthless. Lastly, it is ONLY cash rich companies that should buy back stock. It plays out like this: A company (let's say Apple, which is very cash rich and buys back shares quite frequently) has much more cash on their balance sheet than they need to fully fund operations and pay their dividend. If price of Apple shares drops to a point the company feels is significantly undervalued, they use that cash buy back shares. This is a smart use of cash because it obviously decreases the total number of shares outstanding and thus improves metrics like earnings per share (all other things being equal) provided their debt is under control and at a reasonable rate of interest and they believe that buying back shares is superior to paying down said debt.
Another thing about Apple which I don't like. In my book, any company who is making huge profits like Apple, and who has $100 Billion Dollars in cash, and yet refuses to pay it's shareholders a Dividend, is almost criminal. It is a disgrace to have your Shareholders, who stuck by you in bad times, including an Apple Bankruptcy, now having to Sue you to get a well deserved Dividend. You state that a company who is cash rich and buys back shares at an all time high is good. Good for Who? Company Big Wigs, like Steve Jobs, and his $20M Bonus, do not earn these bonuses based on how much money they give back to there Shareholders. They earn this by meeting certain goals, where a Share Price Increase is one of those goals. A Share Buyback is a false way of increasing earnings per share which in turn increases the share price. Which in turn increases the bonus this CEO or High Ranking Manager makes. In my opinion there should be a Cap on all Executive Bonuses of a company, like in Hockey, where there is a maximum bonus paid, like maybe $1 Million Dollars. Nobody deserves a $20 Million Dollar Bonus! Even Steve Jobs! Especially when they weren't paying Dividends! I just think of the Pigs at the Trough with Enron, and it makes my stomach sick. Another thing to consider for Big Wigs is if you own a substantial amount of shares in that company, say 20% of the total shares. When they buyback 10% of there shares not only does your share price go up, but your ownership also goes up 10%, and now you own 22% of the company. Due that a few times and see where you end up. This helps if you become the largest shareholder of the company and can now be the Chairman of the Board. To make the decision to buyback more shares even. I don't trust these big companies who pay these huge bonuses out to there top managers. LIQ has at least paid a Dividend since 2004 which Apple cannot claim.