RE:Buy backsNoshortsallowed wrote: The finicky nature of complaints on chat boards is maddening. If there had been no buybacks the complaint would have been that the NCIB itself was never used and therefore just a show. When they use it "it's just a show" because they didn't do the max amount of $1 million worth a day and also "there is better use of their money elsewhere"... all of you are armchair analysts and know nothing about capital allocation.
You have a point on this issue : I voiced a concern because I have allocated capital to Well Health (BTW , of 30 companies i own , only 5 are in the red - WELL is one of them)
WELL , I regard as a growth company and I've been content to let management employ that capital as they see best for 3 or 4 years in the hope they do well for us ( not doing well so far but there's still the possibility).
There's an interesting comment on ceo.ca that I like .
"
@bj4short Well, this is fun. I just stumbled upon CEO and this thread and enjoy the banter however, I would suggest a different slant on the company might be warranted. WELL is a narrative story not a fundamental one, the company has a “big picture” strategy and it will require M&A aggregation followed by the necessary cost cutting. ........"
As for capital allocation ,a healthy level for a NCIB is 10%, a standard level might be 5% and 2.5% is on the low side. That 2.5% level for WELL indicates a low level of priority. There are inexperienced investors out there who may regard the company buyback as a positive , which it can be ,but in this case the stock price seems to be going south still. It would appear like the company felt they had to try to do something ........
TWT - time will tell