Please explain the math that concludes someone that holds [stock] options disproportionately gains from a business buying back shares (presumably relative to other shareholders).
It happens when they have a pay package that is dependent on moving the share price. So it’s not about stock market math but the explicit agreement between the company and the executive.
Pay packages are incorporated into income statements. Reducing cash spend now in lieu of equity is priced in.
An executive is also just an employee. So I am not sure what you are implying there. If it’s malfeasance between the shareholders, board of directors, and c suite, you will have to be more explicit.
The question has a flawed premise. An option/RSU holder is not a shareholder before they exercise their options or vest their RSUs, thus should not be getting a dividend allocation (i.e. a non-zero allocation to an option holder is a disproportionate allocation). In a buyback scenario, you are essentially issuing a dividend not to the current shareholders, but splitting that cash among all authorized and not-yet-issued shares (incl. RSUs and options).
> thus should not be getting a dividend allocation (i.e. a non-zero allocation to an option holder is a disproportionate allocation)
This is ignoring the fact that existing shareholders benefited by not having to pay the employees more cash in lieu of the options/RSU. For example, existing shareholders could have benefited from higher dividends due to higher cash flow, or greater appreciation in stock price due to bigger stock buybacks due to higher cash flow.
I acknowledge there is an effect on employee compensation. How it actually plays out is not a simple linear one though (esp. since the comp decision is made at grant time and the impact is seen a while later with different assumptions). The induced incentives and behavior can be different depending on the model chosen.
> The two effects should cancel each other out.
Not sure the math is as clear cut as canceling each other. Maybe. Probably not.
When RSU vests, it is no longer an RSU. Not sure why you would call it “dividend-equivalent” as they are regular dividends at that point (unless your broker lends them out in which case you might get substitute payments in lieu.)
I'm just using the terms that show up on my etrade plan confirmations. In lieu of actual dividends, the terms of the grant say the company will issue RSU dividend equivalents, commensurate with what the dividend would have been had it been purchased on the grant date (or something similar, I don't have that paperwork at hand).
I suppose that might be some special amendment in your specific RSU plan electing to pay some cash on top, not inherent to the nature of an RSU, which is certainly not a stock (i.e. on the corporate financial reports that payment would not be showing up as a dividend).
From his memoirs "The Singapore Story", Chapter 6, "Winning Over the Unions", on the ports:
> Recounting Britain's prodigal years of crippling dock strikes which led to the devaluation of the pound sterling in 1967, I warned, "If that happens here at our harbour I will declare this high treason. I will move against the strike leaders. Charges will be brought in court later. I will get the port going straight away. The Singapore dollar will never be devalued and I think the people of Singapore expect this of their government." I spotlighted the "selfishness of established labour." Cargo handled by the Port of Singapore Authority in 1967 increased by winning over the unions over 10 percent, but the number of workers employed did not go up because the extra work was all taken up by overtime. This was immoral at a time of high unemployment. I told the union delegates that we must rid ourselves of pernicious British-style trade union practices.
A very interesting book; of course, it's his side of the story.
Singapore as an authoritarian city-state is not a model that scales to the entire world. It is an outlier among outliers and not every country has the blessing of being a parasitic entrepôt, even if other aspiring city-states such as Dubai are trying to copy it.
Singapore obviously had a lot of differences, particularly the PM's past close relationship with the unions, and the early stage of development making it more rational for workers to ride the common prosperity of high economic growth rates instead of squeezing more percentage points in negotiation.
But Sweden can still outlaw selective parts unloading by dockworkers, forcing an all-or-nothing strike, if it wanted to, and enforce such laws.
And I don't know why you'd call Singapore parasitic; they weren't leeching off anybody, other than the British early on.
For computers, it's surely that common office keyboards have changed from awful squishy keys to units that are more chiclet-like, or even if not, still have a better key action for a rubber dome keyboard.
The thing is, by the time you get to this book, most students have probably taken DiffEq or multivariable calculus, and had exposure to linear algebra there. (If not in high school.)
Because the devices aren't illegal, and have legal uses, but eBay is being held responsible for the illegal ways end users use these devices.
The only real violation that might have occurred here is not removing listings for these devices where they are explicitly marketed for illegal purposes. Short that, they need to actually justify passing a law outlawing these devices, or they need to enforce the existing laws against deceptive use of these devices.
AFAICT it is up to the EPA whether or not to exempt noncompliant nonroad engines/equipment that are intended solely for competition. I don't think you need to explicitly market a product for illegal purposes for the EPA to determine that it is not unlikely to be used contrary to the intent.
> New nonroad engines/equipment you produce that are used solely for competition are excluded from emission standards. We may exempt (rather than exclude) new nonroad engines/equipment you produce that you intend to be used solely for competition, where we determine that such engines/equipment are unlikely to be used contrary to your intent.
Is that different from any other retail store that has to choose what products to carry based on the local laws? Just because eBay crowd sources their product acquisition, doesn't materially change the fact that they are, ultimately, a retailer selling products. I go to a store and buy a product, and the only difference is in the retailer's perception of my relationship to the origin of the product, but it's a distinction that only exists on paper and ultimately has no difference from the outside. That distinction without a difference shouldn't create a loophole to bypass all liability.
No. Their presumed nukes are more useful as a deterrent against more capable enemies that might develop their own nukes. And they'd immediately become an absolute pariah state. That would damage them in every way.
And a lot of the complaint is about "cases where customers reported being fraudulently induced into
making payments", which would agree with the ancestor comment.
Honestly I don't know. I copied and pasted the text and punctuation from the original document and it put them there. I also didn't do the research. The office of Senator Warren did. You can quibble with them. :)
