Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | SamReidHughes's comments login

Long term, buybacks aren't about supply/demand -- they increase a share's percentage ownership of the business.


Primarily they are used to reward executives who have options and therefore get a disproportionate gain on the buyback.


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.

The two effects should cancel each other out.


> not having to pay the employees more cash

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.


I don't know about you, but I get dividend equivalents when RSUs vest to cover precisely this scenario.


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).


There isn’t any. The poster above you is incorrect.


They have RSUs.


Philly cheesesteak sellers in other locations often advertise they use real Amoroso rolls shipped from Philadelphia.


They seem to mean talent density in the sense of the amount of talent per person.


Channel their inner LKY and deal with it the way he did.


I do not understand the reference. What/who is LKY in this situation?


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.


I’m riffing off of this comment which described Singapore and Liechtenstein as such:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6786275


I'm assuming it's referring to Lee Kuan Yew, first premier of Singapore:

https://mothership.sg/2017/11/lee-kuan-yew-singapore-airline...


Singapore.


The parent is expressing their affection for a fascist dictator.


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.)


That was my path and that first introduction was awful. Axler made everything finally make sense to me.


They want to further outsource law enforcement to a due-process-free zone.


This is literally being tried in court under the Clean Air Act. How does this circumvent due process?


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.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-U...


The devices are illegal to sell and install. EBay seems to be squarely in the first business.


They are illegal to install on road vehicles. You can do whatever you want to off road vehicles used in power sports.


They want eBay to enforce the law on merchants.


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.


I think it's an efficient use of tax dollars for the gov to hold a trial once, instead of 300k times.


Like every business that's supposed to enforce any kind of compliance requirement…


eBay is a merchant


This is being handled through due process


Everything you're talking about has nothing to do with federal taxation.


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.


Transactions where you got scammed aren't the same thing as unauthorized transactions.


"Banks are not repaying customers who contest “unauthorized” Zelle payments – potentially violating federal law and CFPB rules."

I suppose you and Senator Warren have different definitions for unauthorized.


So, actually, 47% of them by dollar amount, according to the report you quoted. Selectively quoted. Why do you behave this way?

Here's a question for you to think about: Why do they reverse some claims but not others?


> Why do they reverse some claims but not others?

I guess that is the question. I'll be interested in the bank's reply.


Why is the word "unauthorized" in scare quotes?

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. :)


> You can quibble with them. :)

The scare quotes imply that they are the ones saying the case isn't very strong, so I'm not quibbling with them, I'm trying to interpret them.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: