Remember when that used to be illegal for I'm sure no good reason? /s
Seriously, they're practically rubbing ours and the Biden admin's face in their open price gouging. I really wish the Biden admin would take on cleaning up the market as one of their priorities.
Remember when that used to be illegal for I'm sure no good reason? /s
Seriously, they're practically rubbing ours and the Biden admin's face in their open price gouging. I really wish the Biden admin would take on cleaning up the market as one of their priorities.
That would be nice, but most of them are in on the grift, so I’m not holding my breath.
"Go down, kick ass, and set yourselves up as gods, that's our Prime Directive!"
Remember when that used to be illegal for I'm sure no good reason? /s
There isn't much of a good reason. The differences between buybacks and dividends are fairly marginal and mostly involve what types of investors benefit more.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Remember when that used to be illegal for I'm sure no good reason? /s
There isn't much of a good reason. The differences between buybacks and dividends are fairly marginal and mostly involve what types of investors benefit more.
Haven't most companies moved away from dividends though? That alone should be a sign that one is better than the other?
Also what types of investors benefit more is the most important thing in all of these rules, it's the difference between a rising tide and trickle down.
Remember when that used to be illegal for I'm sure no good reason? /s
There isn't much of a good reason. The differences between buybacks and dividends are fairly marginal and mostly involve what types of investors benefit more.
Haven't most companies moved away from dividends though? That alone should be a sign that one is better than the other?
Also what types of investors benefit more is the most important thing in all of these rules, it's the difference between a rising tide and trickle down.
Yeah because if a company issues you dividends then that's taxed as regular income, while a buyback means you just gain in stock value and if you sell you pay capital gains rate instead of regular tax rate.
Like... that's one of the reasons buybacks were illegal, because they were an end-run around paying full taxes on dividends.
Aioua on
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Remember when that used to be illegal for I'm sure no good reason? /s
There isn't much of a good reason. The differences between buybacks and dividends are fairly marginal and mostly involve what types of investors benefit more.
Haven't most companies moved away from dividends though? That alone should be a sign that one is better than the other?
Also what types of investors benefit more is the most important thing in all of these rules, it's the difference between a rising tide and trickle down.
The big difference is stock buybacks (artificially IMO) juice the stock price. And typically that's money that could serve better reinvested in the company. This thread had already brought up the multiple ways that the american oil industry has pigeonholed itself, but hey, why invest in infrastructure when we can just buy back our stock?
Remember when that used to be illegal for I'm sure no good reason? /s
There isn't much of a good reason. The differences between buybacks and dividends are fairly marginal and mostly involve what types of investors benefit more.
Haven't most companies moved away from dividends though? That alone should be a sign that one is better than the other?
Also what types of investors benefit more is the most important thing in all of these rules, it's the difference between a rising tide and trickle down.
The big difference is stock buybacks (artificially IMO) juice the stock price. And typically that's money that could serve better reinvested in the company. This thread had already brought up the multiple ways that the american oil industry has pigeonholed itself, but hey, why invest in infrastructure when we can just buy back our stock?
And dividends artificially reduce it.
By definition dividends (and buybacks) are money that the company doesn't think is better reinvested. What infrastructure do you think they could invest in?
Remember when that used to be illegal for I'm sure no good reason? /s
There isn't much of a good reason. The differences between buybacks and dividends are fairly marginal and mostly involve what types of investors benefit more.
Haven't most companies moved away from dividends though? That alone should be a sign that one is better than the other?
Also what types of investors benefit more is the most important thing in all of these rules, it's the difference between a rising tide and trickle down.
Yeah because if a company issues you dividends then that's taxed as regular income, while a buyback means you just gain in stock value and if you sell you pay capital gains rate instead of regular tax rate.
Like... that's one of the reasons buybacks were illegal, because they were an end-run around paying full taxes on dividends.
A better solution to that would be to properly tax capital gains.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Remember when that used to be illegal for I'm sure no good reason? /s
There isn't much of a good reason. The differences between buybacks and dividends are fairly marginal and mostly involve what types of investors benefit more.
Haven't most companies moved away from dividends though? That alone should be a sign that one is better than the other?
Also what types of investors benefit more is the most important thing in all of these rules, it's the difference between a rising tide and trickle down.
The big difference is stock buybacks (artificially IMO) juice the stock price. And typically that's money that could serve better reinvested in the company. This thread had already brought up the multiple ways that the american oil industry has pigeonholed itself, but hey, why invest in infrastructure when we can just buy back our stock?
And dividends artificially reduce it.
By definition dividends (and buybacks) are money that the company doesn't think is better reinvested. What infrastructure do you think they could invest in?
It's already been posted in the thread.
rndmhero wrote: »
Marketplace on NPR actually had a very digestible explanation on why we import Russian oil.
The tl;dr is that much of the US refining capacity is tooled for the type of crude Canada, Venezuela, and Russia produce, because that's what looked plentiful when the refineries were built. The newer crude produced by fracking is not something many US refineries are able to process without significant retrofitting, which is expensive. As a result, the US exports a lot of what it produces while importing huge volumes from other countries because it's easier to ship crude to wherever the optimal refineries are than to rebuild refineries locally. You know, until global pandemics and land wars in Europe make that shipping slightly more complicated.
Now I don't necessarily encourage finding new ways to refine fuel, clearly for the sake of the planet we need other energies developed. But it says something that gas companies are sitting on piles of money (or financing!) to buy back stocks instead of diversifying their refining capacities to lessen their liability to global oil supply instabilities. If there ever was a good example of over-financialization in the US market, this seems as good example as any.
And at least with dividends the dividend typically offsets the stock price reduction. They seem to be a value add for the retail investor whereas stock buy backs are just kickbacks to corporate leadership and hedge funds.
Remember when that used to be illegal for I'm sure no good reason? /s
There isn't much of a good reason. The differences between buybacks and dividends are fairly marginal and mostly involve what types of investors benefit more.
Haven't most companies moved away from dividends though? That alone should be a sign that one is better than the other?
Also what types of investors benefit more is the most important thing in all of these rules, it's the difference between a rising tide and trickle down.
The big difference is stock buybacks (artificially IMO) juice the stock price. And typically that's money that could serve better reinvested in the company. This thread had already brought up the multiple ways that the american oil industry has pigeonholed itself, but hey, why invest in infrastructure when we can just buy back our stock?
And dividends artificially reduce it.
By definition dividends (and buybacks) are money that the company doesn't think is better reinvested. What infrastructure do you think they could invest in?
It's already been posted in the thread.
rndmhero wrote: »
Marketplace on NPR actually had a very digestible explanation on why we import Russian oil.
The tl;dr is that much of the US refining capacity is tooled for the type of crude Canada, Venezuela, and Russia produce, because that's what looked plentiful when the refineries were built. The newer crude produced by fracking is not something many US refineries are able to process without significant retrofitting, which is expensive. As a result, the US exports a lot of what it produces while importing huge volumes from other countries because it's easier to ship crude to wherever the optimal refineries are than to rebuild refineries locally. You know, until global pandemics and land wars in Europe make that shipping slightly more complicated.
Now I don't necessarily encourage finding new ways to refine fuel, clearly for the sake of the planet we need other energies developed. But it says something that gas companies are sitting on piles of money to buy back stocks instead of diversifying their refining capacities to lessen their liability to global oil supply instabilities.
And at least with dividends the dividend typically offsets the stock price reduction.
Will building this new refining capacity make them more profitable? The crisis won't last forever and then you will be stuck with a bunch of excess refining capacity that is not competitive. Also there is a general issue with how the structure of executive compensation incentivizes short term stock increases over long term viability but that is a broader issue and frankly has little do with the price of gas.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Remember when that used to be illegal for I'm sure no good reason? /s
There isn't much of a good reason. The differences between buybacks and dividends are fairly marginal and mostly involve what types of investors benefit more.
Haven't most companies moved away from dividends though? That alone should be a sign that one is better than the other?
Also what types of investors benefit more is the most important thing in all of these rules, it's the difference between a rising tide and trickle down.
The big difference is stock buybacks (artificially IMO) juice the stock price. And typically that's money that could serve better reinvested in the company. This thread had already brought up the multiple ways that the american oil industry has pigeonholed itself, but hey, why invest in infrastructure when we can just buy back our stock?
And dividends artificially reduce it.
By definition dividends (and buybacks) are money that the company doesn't think is better reinvested. What infrastructure do you think they could invest in?
It's already been posted in the thread.
rndmhero wrote: »
Marketplace on NPR actually had a very digestible explanation on why we import Russian oil.
The tl;dr is that much of the US refining capacity is tooled for the type of crude Canada, Venezuela, and Russia produce, because that's what looked plentiful when the refineries were built. The newer crude produced by fracking is not something many US refineries are able to process without significant retrofitting, which is expensive. As a result, the US exports a lot of what it produces while importing huge volumes from other countries because it's easier to ship crude to wherever the optimal refineries are than to rebuild refineries locally. You know, until global pandemics and land wars in Europe make that shipping slightly more complicated.
Now I don't necessarily encourage finding new ways to refine fuel, clearly for the sake of the planet we need other energies developed. But it says something that gas companies are sitting on piles of money to buy back stocks instead of diversifying their refining capacities to lessen their liability to global oil supply instabilities.
And at least with dividends the dividend typically offsets the stock price reduction.
Will building this new refining capacity make them more profitable? The crisis won't last forever and then you will be stuck with a bunch of excess refining capacity that is not competitive. Also there is a general issue with how the structure of executive compensation incentivizes short term stock increases over long term viability but that is a broader issue and frankly has little do with the price of gas.
Remember when that used to be illegal for I'm sure no good reason? /s
There isn't much of a good reason. The differences between buybacks and dividends are fairly marginal and mostly involve what types of investors benefit more.
Haven't most companies moved away from dividends though? That alone should be a sign that one is better than the other?
Also what types of investors benefit more is the most important thing in all of these rules, it's the difference between a rising tide and trickle down.
The big difference is stock buybacks (artificially IMO) juice the stock price. And typically that's money that could serve better reinvested in the company. This thread had already brought up the multiple ways that the american oil industry has pigeonholed itself, but hey, why invest in infrastructure when we can just buy back our stock?
And dividends artificially reduce it.
By definition dividends (and buybacks) are money that the company doesn't think is better reinvested. What infrastructure do you think they could invest in?
It's already been posted in the thread.
rndmhero wrote: »
Marketplace on NPR actually had a very digestible explanation on why we import Russian oil.
The tl;dr is that much of the US refining capacity is tooled for the type of crude Canada, Venezuela, and Russia produce, because that's what looked plentiful when the refineries were built. The newer crude produced by fracking is not something many US refineries are able to process without significant retrofitting, which is expensive. As a result, the US exports a lot of what it produces while importing huge volumes from other countries because it's easier to ship crude to wherever the optimal refineries are than to rebuild refineries locally. You know, until global pandemics and land wars in Europe make that shipping slightly more complicated.
Now I don't necessarily encourage finding new ways to refine fuel, clearly for the sake of the planet we need other energies developed. But it says something that gas companies are sitting on piles of money to buy back stocks instead of diversifying their refining capacities to lessen their liability to global oil supply instabilities.
And at least with dividends the dividend typically offsets the stock price reduction.
Will building this new refining capacity make them more profitable? The crisis won't last forever and then you will be stuck with a bunch of excess refining capacity that is not competitive. Also there is a general issue with how the structure of executive compensation incentivizes short term stock increases over long term viability but that is a broader issue and frankly has little do with the price of gas.
Yeah exactly this. Countries have been beating the drum about switching to renewables for a long time and some are actually doing it. Car companies are building electric vehicles. Oil consumption has extremely small growth
Building new oil infrastructure - even if elevated prices last - still might not make sense if it has a 30, 40 year investment timeframe. And with all the noises about bringing oil prices down already they likely aren't getting many years of elevated prices
Remember when that used to be illegal for I'm sure no good reason? /s
There isn't much of a good reason. The differences between buybacks and dividends are fairly marginal and mostly involve what types of investors benefit more.
Haven't most companies moved away from dividends though? That alone should be a sign that one is better than the other?
Also what types of investors benefit more is the most important thing in all of these rules, it's the difference between a rising tide and trickle down.
The big difference is stock buybacks (artificially IMO) juice the stock price. And typically that's money that could serve better reinvested in the company. This thread had already brought up the multiple ways that the american oil industry has pigeonholed itself, but hey, why invest in infrastructure when we can just buy back our stock?
And dividends artificially reduce it.
By definition dividends (and buybacks) are money that the company doesn't think is better reinvested. What infrastructure do you think they could invest in?
It's already been posted in the thread.
rndmhero wrote: »
Marketplace on NPR actually had a very digestible explanation on why we import Russian oil.
The tl;dr is that much of the US refining capacity is tooled for the type of crude Canada, Venezuela, and Russia produce, because that's what looked plentiful when the refineries were built. The newer crude produced by fracking is not something many US refineries are able to process without significant retrofitting, which is expensive. As a result, the US exports a lot of what it produces while importing huge volumes from other countries because it's easier to ship crude to wherever the optimal refineries are than to rebuild refineries locally. You know, until global pandemics and land wars in Europe make that shipping slightly more complicated.
Now I don't necessarily encourage finding new ways to refine fuel, clearly for the sake of the planet we need other energies developed. But it says something that gas companies are sitting on piles of money to buy back stocks instead of diversifying their refining capacities to lessen their liability to global oil supply instabilities.
And at least with dividends the dividend typically offsets the stock price reduction.
Will building this new refining capacity make them more profitable? The crisis won't last forever and then you will be stuck with a bunch of excess refining capacity that is not competitive. Also there is a general issue with how the structure of executive compensation incentivizes short term stock increases over long term viability but that is a broader issue and frankly has little do with the price of gas.
Yeah exactly this. Countries have been beating the drum about switching to renewables for a long time and some are actually doing it. Car companies are building electric vehicles. Oil consumption has extremely small growth
Building new oil infrastructure - even if elevated prices last - still might not make sense if it has a 30, 40 year investment timeframe. And with all the noises about bringing oil prices down already they likely aren't getting many years of elevated prices
If the business model is doomed than the buybacks are just looting. The responsible use of the money would be to begin transitioning the company to new markets that aren't dying.
Remember when that used to be illegal for I'm sure no good reason? /s
There isn't much of a good reason. The differences between buybacks and dividends are fairly marginal and mostly involve what types of investors benefit more.
Haven't most companies moved away from dividends though? That alone should be a sign that one is better than the other?
Also what types of investors benefit more is the most important thing in all of these rules, it's the difference between a rising tide and trickle down.
The big difference is stock buybacks (artificially IMO) juice the stock price. And typically that's money that could serve better reinvested in the company. This thread had already brought up the multiple ways that the american oil industry has pigeonholed itself, but hey, why invest in infrastructure when we can just buy back our stock?
And dividends artificially reduce it.
By definition dividends (and buybacks) are money that the company doesn't think is better reinvested. What infrastructure do you think they could invest in?
It's already been posted in the thread.
rndmhero wrote: »
Marketplace on NPR actually had a very digestible explanation on why we import Russian oil.
The tl;dr is that much of the US refining capacity is tooled for the type of crude Canada, Venezuela, and Russia produce, because that's what looked plentiful when the refineries were built. The newer crude produced by fracking is not something many US refineries are able to process without significant retrofitting, which is expensive. As a result, the US exports a lot of what it produces while importing huge volumes from other countries because it's easier to ship crude to wherever the optimal refineries are than to rebuild refineries locally. You know, until global pandemics and land wars in Europe make that shipping slightly more complicated.
Now I don't necessarily encourage finding new ways to refine fuel, clearly for the sake of the planet we need other energies developed. But it says something that gas companies are sitting on piles of money to buy back stocks instead of diversifying their refining capacities to lessen their liability to global oil supply instabilities.
And at least with dividends the dividend typically offsets the stock price reduction.
Will building this new refining capacity make them more profitable? The crisis won't last forever and then you will be stuck with a bunch of excess refining capacity that is not competitive. Also there is a general issue with how the structure of executive compensation incentivizes short term stock increases over long term viability but that is a broader issue and frankly has little do with the price of gas.
Do stock buy backs make them more profitable?
Yes in that they increase the stock price.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Remember when that used to be illegal for I'm sure no good reason? /s
There isn't much of a good reason. The differences between buybacks and dividends are fairly marginal and mostly involve what types of investors benefit more.
Haven't most companies moved away from dividends though? That alone should be a sign that one is better than the other?
Also what types of investors benefit more is the most important thing in all of these rules, it's the difference between a rising tide and trickle down.
The big difference is stock buybacks (artificially IMO) juice the stock price. And typically that's money that could serve better reinvested in the company. This thread had already brought up the multiple ways that the american oil industry has pigeonholed itself, but hey, why invest in infrastructure when we can just buy back our stock?
And dividends artificially reduce it.
By definition dividends (and buybacks) are money that the company doesn't think is better reinvested. What infrastructure do you think they could invest in?
It's already been posted in the thread.
rndmhero wrote: »
Marketplace on NPR actually had a very digestible explanation on why we import Russian oil.
The tl;dr is that much of the US refining capacity is tooled for the type of crude Canada, Venezuela, and Russia produce, because that's what looked plentiful when the refineries were built. The newer crude produced by fracking is not something many US refineries are able to process without significant retrofitting, which is expensive. As a result, the US exports a lot of what it produces while importing huge volumes from other countries because it's easier to ship crude to wherever the optimal refineries are than to rebuild refineries locally. You know, until global pandemics and land wars in Europe make that shipping slightly more complicated.
Now I don't necessarily encourage finding new ways to refine fuel, clearly for the sake of the planet we need other energies developed. But it says something that gas companies are sitting on piles of money to buy back stocks instead of diversifying their refining capacities to lessen their liability to global oil supply instabilities.
And at least with dividends the dividend typically offsets the stock price reduction.
Will building this new refining capacity make them more profitable? The crisis won't last forever and then you will be stuck with a bunch of excess refining capacity that is not competitive. Also there is a general issue with how the structure of executive compensation incentivizes short term stock increases over long term viability but that is a broader issue and frankly has little do with the price of gas.
Yeah exactly this. Countries have been beating the drum about switching to renewables for a long time and some are actually doing it. Car companies are building electric vehicles. Oil consumption has extremely small growth
Building new oil infrastructure - even if elevated prices last - still might not make sense if it has a 30, 40 year investment timeframe. And with all the noises about bringing oil prices down already they likely aren't getting many years of elevated prices
If the business model is doomed than the buybacks are just looting. The responsible use of the money would be to begin transitioning the company to new markets that aren't dying.
They are. But they also might as well reap the rewards from their dying industry while they can
Not every dollar a company makes needs to be reinvested, people here decry exactly that when "endless growth" stocks don't pay out dividends and keep it all
Remember when that used to be illegal for I'm sure no good reason? /s
There isn't much of a good reason. The differences between buybacks and dividends are fairly marginal and mostly involve what types of investors benefit more.
Haven't most companies moved away from dividends though? That alone should be a sign that one is better than the other?
Also what types of investors benefit more is the most important thing in all of these rules, it's the difference between a rising tide and trickle down.
The big difference is stock buybacks (artificially IMO) juice the stock price. And typically that's money that could serve better reinvested in the company. This thread had already brought up the multiple ways that the american oil industry has pigeonholed itself, but hey, why invest in infrastructure when we can just buy back our stock?
And dividends artificially reduce it.
By definition dividends (and buybacks) are money that the company doesn't think is better reinvested. What infrastructure do you think they could invest in?
It's already been posted in the thread.
rndmhero wrote: »
Marketplace on NPR actually had a very digestible explanation on why we import Russian oil.
The tl;dr is that much of the US refining capacity is tooled for the type of crude Canada, Venezuela, and Russia produce, because that's what looked plentiful when the refineries were built. The newer crude produced by fracking is not something many US refineries are able to process without significant retrofitting, which is expensive. As a result, the US exports a lot of what it produces while importing huge volumes from other countries because it's easier to ship crude to wherever the optimal refineries are than to rebuild refineries locally. You know, until global pandemics and land wars in Europe make that shipping slightly more complicated.
Now I don't necessarily encourage finding new ways to refine fuel, clearly for the sake of the planet we need other energies developed. But it says something that gas companies are sitting on piles of money to buy back stocks instead of diversifying their refining capacities to lessen their liability to global oil supply instabilities.
And at least with dividends the dividend typically offsets the stock price reduction.
Will building this new refining capacity make them more profitable? The crisis won't last forever and then you will be stuck with a bunch of excess refining capacity that is not competitive. Also there is a general issue with how the structure of executive compensation incentivizes short term stock increases over long term viability but that is a broader issue and frankly has little do with the price of gas.
Do stock buy backs make them more profitable?
Yes in that they increase the stock price.
So, no they don't because stock price isn't profits, it's the ostensible value of the company which is correlated but definitely not the same thing.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
Remember when that used to be illegal for I'm sure no good reason? /s
There isn't much of a good reason. The differences between buybacks and dividends are fairly marginal and mostly involve what types of investors benefit more.
Haven't most companies moved away from dividends though? That alone should be a sign that one is better than the other?
Also what types of investors benefit more is the most important thing in all of these rules, it's the difference between a rising tide and trickle down.
The big difference is stock buybacks (artificially IMO) juice the stock price. And typically that's money that could serve better reinvested in the company. This thread had already brought up the multiple ways that the american oil industry has pigeonholed itself, but hey, why invest in infrastructure when we can just buy back our stock?
And dividends artificially reduce it.
By definition dividends (and buybacks) are money that the company doesn't think is better reinvested. What infrastructure do you think they could invest in?
It's already been posted in the thread.
rndmhero wrote: »
Marketplace on NPR actually had a very digestible explanation on why we import Russian oil.
The tl;dr is that much of the US refining capacity is tooled for the type of crude Canada, Venezuela, and Russia produce, because that's what looked plentiful when the refineries were built. The newer crude produced by fracking is not something many US refineries are able to process without significant retrofitting, which is expensive. As a result, the US exports a lot of what it produces while importing huge volumes from other countries because it's easier to ship crude to wherever the optimal refineries are than to rebuild refineries locally. You know, until global pandemics and land wars in Europe make that shipping slightly more complicated.
Now I don't necessarily encourage finding new ways to refine fuel, clearly for the sake of the planet we need other energies developed. But it says something that gas companies are sitting on piles of money to buy back stocks instead of diversifying their refining capacities to lessen their liability to global oil supply instabilities.
And at least with dividends the dividend typically offsets the stock price reduction.
Will building this new refining capacity make them more profitable? The crisis won't last forever and then you will be stuck with a bunch of excess refining capacity that is not competitive. Also there is a general issue with how the structure of executive compensation incentivizes short term stock increases over long term viability but that is a broader issue and frankly has little do with the price of gas.
Do stock buy backs make them more profitable?
Yes in that they increase the stock price.
So, no they don't because stock price isn't profits, it's the ostensible value of the company which is correlated but definitely not the same thing.
Sure, but guess which their investors care about more?
Petrol could soar to £2.50 a litre, while diesel could hit £3 and might even be rationed, experts told MPs on Monday, as they warned of worsening pain for consumers as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine hits global energy markets.
Prices at the pump have already soared in recent weeks, reaching a succession of highs amid the Ukraine crisis. The latest figures from the data firm Experian Catalist show the average cost of a litre of petrol was 163.5p on Sunday, while diesel was 173.4p.
However, in testimony to the Treasury select committee, experts said prices could increase much further, with diesel – heavily reliant on Russian supplies – potentially doubling.
“Consumers need to get ready for continued rises in fuel prices,” said Nathan Piper, the head of oil and gas research at Investec bank.
Asked about how high the cost of fuel could go, he said: “Not to be flippant but pick a number.”
...
Sen added that diesel was likely to be rationed in Germany before the end of March and that the same could happen in the UK.
That £3 per liter figure for diesel works out at $14.77 per US gallon. And they're talking about rationing the stuff. Potentially before the end of this month.
I posted the link less to be about buybacks vs dividends and other things and more about the war being an excuse to crank up prices and then use the profits to buy back stock thereby making shareholders even richer on top of the profits.
I posted the link less to be about buybacks vs dividends and other things and more about the war being an excuse to crank up prices and then use the profits to buy back stock thereby making shareholders even richer on top of the profits.
Be mad at the war profiteers, folks.
Except that price per barrel is set by a futures commodity market not by oil companies? Buyers worried about oil availability are driving up the price not sellers.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
I posted the link less to be about buybacks vs dividends and other things and more about the war being an excuse to crank up prices and then use the profits to buy back stock thereby making shareholders even richer on top of the profits.
Be mad at the war profiteers, folks.
Except that price per barrel is set by a futures commodity market not by oil companies? Buyers worried about oil availability are driving up the price not sellers.
They increased their buyback plans because of the situation though.
I posted the link less to be about buybacks vs dividends and other things and more about the war being an excuse to crank up prices and then use the profits to buy back stock thereby making shareholders even richer on top of the profits.
Be mad at the war profiteers, folks.
Except that price per barrel is set by a futures commodity market not by oil companies? Buyers worried about oil availability are driving up the price not sellers.
They increased their buyback plans because of the situation though.
Yes, they presumably consider that the best use of the windfall. And?
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
I posted the link less to be about buybacks vs dividends and other things and more about the war being an excuse to crank up prices and then use the profits to buy back stock thereby making shareholders even richer on top of the profits.
Be mad at the war profiteers, folks.
Except that price per barrel is set by a futures commodity market not by oil companies? Buyers worried about oil availability are driving up the price not sellers.
They increased their buyback plans because of the situation though.
Yes, they presumably consider that the best use of the windfall. And?
Do you think they would have increased their dividends if buybacks were still legal? I posit they probably wouldn't.
I posted the link less to be about buybacks vs dividends and other things and more about the war being an excuse to crank up prices and then use the profits to buy back stock thereby making shareholders even richer on top of the profits.
Be mad at the war profiteers, folks.
Except that price per barrel is set by a futures commodity market not by oil companies? Buyers worried about oil availability are driving up the price not sellers.
Oil companies sell those futures, though. Because that's the thing with futures, someone has to deliver the goods. And since oil companies are the only way to get bulk oil, they basically are the commodity market.
I posted the link less to be about buybacks vs dividends and other things and more about the war being an excuse to crank up prices and then use the profits to buy back stock thereby making shareholders even richer on top of the profits.
Be mad at the war profiteers, folks.
Except that price per barrel is set by a futures commodity market not by oil companies? Buyers worried about oil availability are driving up the price not sellers.
They increased their buyback plans because of the situation though.
Yes, they presumably consider that the best use of the windfall. And?
Do you think they would have increased their dividends if buybacks were still legal? I posit they probably wouldn't.
If they didn't the only reason would be because then they would likely end up cutting their dividend when prices go down again and companies like to have a record of continual increases
I posted the link less to be about buybacks vs dividends and other things and more about the war being an excuse to crank up prices and then use the profits to buy back stock thereby making shareholders even richer on top of the profits.
Be mad at the war profiteers, folks.
Except that price per barrel is set by a futures commodity market not by oil companies? Buyers worried about oil availability are driving up the price not sellers.
You say this like it's a natural and rational thing, and not evidence of a society that has massively screwed up in some way.
I posted the link less to be about buybacks vs dividends and other things and more about the war being an excuse to crank up prices and then use the profits to buy back stock thereby making shareholders even richer on top of the profits.
Be mad at the war profiteers, folks.
Except that price per barrel is set by a futures commodity market not by oil companies? Buyers worried about oil availability are driving up the price not sellers.
They increased their buyback plans because of the situation though.
Yes, they presumably consider that the best use of the windfall. And?
Do you think they would have increased their dividends if buybacks were still legal? I posit they probably wouldn't.
If they didn't the only reason would be because then they would likely end up cutting their dividend when prices go down again and companies like to have a record of continual increases
This small difference is kind of my whole point about why buybacks are in fact different than dividends and probably should be illegal.
I posted the link less to be about buybacks vs dividends and other things and more about the war being an excuse to crank up prices and then use the profits to buy back stock thereby making shareholders even richer on top of the profits.
Be mad at the war profiteers, folks.
Except that price per barrel is set by a futures commodity market not by oil companies? Buyers worried about oil availability are driving up the price not sellers.
They increased their buyback plans because of the situation though.
Yes, they presumably consider that the best use of the windfall. And?
Do you think they would have increased their dividends if buybacks were still legal? I posit they probably wouldn't.
If they didn't the only reason would be because then they would likely end up cutting their dividend when prices go down again and companies like to have a record of continual increases
This small difference is kind of my whole point about why buybacks are in fact different than dividends and probably should be illegal.
There are good reasons why share buybacks should be illegal or have more regulation, but this isn't one of them. The company not wanting to increase the dividend due to a temporary profitablity increase, because decreasing the dividend has huge negative connotations, and holding on to the cash when they otherwise would have returned it is bad for the owners and the economy as that is unused capital.
I posted the link less to be about buybacks vs dividends and other things and more about the war being an excuse to crank up prices and then use the profits to buy back stock thereby making shareholders even richer on top of the profits.
Be mad at the war profiteers, folks.
Except that price per barrel is set by a futures commodity market not by oil companies? Buyers worried about oil availability are driving up the price not sellers.
They increased their buyback plans because of the situation though.
Yes, they presumably consider that the best use of the windfall. And?
Do you think they would have increased their dividends if buybacks were still legal? I posit they probably wouldn't.
If they didn't the only reason would be because then they would likely end up cutting their dividend when prices go down again and companies like to have a record of continual increases
This small difference is kind of my whole point about why buybacks are in fact different than dividends and probably should be illegal.
There are good reasons why share buybacks should be illegal or have more regulation, but this isn't one of them. The company not wanting to increase the dividend due to a temporary profitablity increase, because decreasing the dividend has huge negative connotations, and holding on to the cash when they otherwise would have returned it is bad for the owners and the economy as that is unused capital.
dividends don't have to be $X per share every month/year/whatever, you could issue a bonus out-of-cycle dividend to deal with just this scenario
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Remember when that used to be illegal for I'm sure no good reason? /s
There isn't much of a good reason. The differences between buybacks and dividends are fairly marginal and mostly involve what types of investors benefit more.
Haven't most companies moved away from dividends though? That alone should be a sign that one is better than the other?
Also what types of investors benefit more is the most important thing in all of these rules, it's the difference between a rising tide and trickle down.
The big difference is stock buybacks (artificially IMO) juice the stock price. And typically that's money that could serve better reinvested in the company. This thread had already brought up the multiple ways that the american oil industry has pigeonholed itself, but hey, why invest in infrastructure when we can just buy back our stock?
And dividends artificially reduce it.
By definition dividends (and buybacks) are money that the company doesn't think is better reinvested. What infrastructure do you think they could invest in?
Solar arrays and wind farms. Nothing says Exxon can only buy oil and refine oil. BP rebranded in 2002 to 'Beyond Petroleum'. It was utter bullshit greenwashing, but it could have been meaningful steps to shift towards a non-carbon future.
Remember when that used to be illegal for I'm sure no good reason? /s
There isn't much of a good reason. The differences between buybacks and dividends are fairly marginal and mostly involve what types of investors benefit more.
Haven't most companies moved away from dividends though? That alone should be a sign that one is better than the other?
Also what types of investors benefit more is the most important thing in all of these rules, it's the difference between a rising tide and trickle down.
The big difference is stock buybacks (artificially IMO) juice the stock price. And typically that's money that could serve better reinvested in the company. This thread had already brought up the multiple ways that the american oil industry has pigeonholed itself, but hey, why invest in infrastructure when we can just buy back our stock?
And dividends artificially reduce it.
By definition dividends (and buybacks) are money that the company doesn't think is better reinvested. What infrastructure do you think they could invest in?
Solar arrays and wind farms. Nothing says Exxon can only buy oil and refine oil. BP rebranded in 2002 to 'Beyond Petroleum'. It was utter bullshit greenwashing, but it could have been meaningful steps to shift towards a non-carbon future.
The problem is those companies have the capital to easily do the various forms of green energy while pushing better ways of using it. They could just tomorrow decide to switch over to a green new deal ideal within a faster timetable than most 5 or so years
And can easily price gouge people/states/countries into accepting the costs
Remember when that used to be illegal for I'm sure no good reason? /s
There isn't much of a good reason. The differences between buybacks and dividends are fairly marginal and mostly involve what types of investors benefit more.
Haven't most companies moved away from dividends though? That alone should be a sign that one is better than the other?
Also what types of investors benefit more is the most important thing in all of these rules, it's the difference between a rising tide and trickle down.
The big difference is stock buybacks (artificially IMO) juice the stock price. And typically that's money that could serve better reinvested in the company. This thread had already brought up the multiple ways that the american oil industry has pigeonholed itself, but hey, why invest in infrastructure when we can just buy back our stock?
And dividends artificially reduce it.
By definition dividends (and buybacks) are money that the company doesn't think is better reinvested. What infrastructure do you think they could invest in?
Solar arrays and wind farms. Nothing says Exxon can only buy oil and refine oil. BP rebranded in 2002 to 'Beyond Petroleum'. It was utter bullshit greenwashing, but it could have been meaningful steps to shift towards a non-carbon future.
The problem is those companies have the capital to easily do the various forms of green energy while pushing better ways of using it. They could just tomorrow decide to switch over to a green new deal ideal within a faster timetable than most 5 or so years
And can easily price gouge people/states/countries into accepting the costs
You might be surprised. If all that buyback money went to building solar farms that would increase the expected annual renewable increase by about 10%. Not total deployed capacity, annual new deployments
Remember when that used to be illegal for I'm sure no good reason? /s
There isn't much of a good reason. The differences between buybacks and dividends are fairly marginal and mostly involve what types of investors benefit more.
Haven't most companies moved away from dividends though? That alone should be a sign that one is better than the other?
Also what types of investors benefit more is the most important thing in all of these rules, it's the difference between a rising tide and trickle down.
The big difference is stock buybacks (artificially IMO) juice the stock price. And typically that's money that could serve better reinvested in the company. This thread had already brought up the multiple ways that the american oil industry has pigeonholed itself, but hey, why invest in infrastructure when we can just buy back our stock?
And dividends artificially reduce it.
By definition dividends (and buybacks) are money that the company doesn't think is better reinvested. What infrastructure do you think they could invest in?
Solar arrays and wind farms. Nothing says Exxon can only buy oil and refine oil. BP rebranded in 2002 to 'Beyond Petroleum'. It was utter bullshit greenwashing, but it could have been meaningful steps to shift towards a non-carbon future.
The problem is those companies have the capital to easily do the various forms of green energy while pushing better ways of using it. They could just tomorrow decide to switch over to a green new deal ideal within a faster timetable than most 5 or so years
And can easily price gouge people/states/countries into accepting the costs
You might be surprised. If all that buyback money went to building solar farms that would increase the expected annual renewable increase by about 10%. Not total deployed capacity, annual new deployments
What i meant to say was they could build the whole network of green energy with ease while switching their whole RnD over to new ways to collect it
But they would control the whole network like they do now
Global dividends reached a first-quarter record of $263.3 billion, rising 7.8% despite concerns about the world economy, according to new research Monday.
Inflation was 7.9% in Feb. So, they're not growing at all?
Breaking the record for largest money anything doesn't really mean anything, because inflation just creates new larger numbers.
Posts
Oil companies planning 38 billion dollars in stock buybacks this year.
Seriously, they're practically rubbing ours and the Biden admin's face in their open price gouging. I really wish the Biden admin would take on cleaning up the market as one of their priorities.
That would be nice, but most of them are in on the grift, so I’m not holding my breath.
There isn't much of a good reason. The differences between buybacks and dividends are fairly marginal and mostly involve what types of investors benefit more.
Haven't most companies moved away from dividends though? That alone should be a sign that one is better than the other?
Also what types of investors benefit more is the most important thing in all of these rules, it's the difference between a rising tide and trickle down.
Let's see how long it takes for recovery in retail. i'm betting profit taking will continue as long as possible.
Yeah because if a company issues you dividends then that's taxed as regular income, while a buyback means you just gain in stock value and if you sell you pay capital gains rate instead of regular tax rate.
Like... that's one of the reasons buybacks were illegal, because they were an end-run around paying full taxes on dividends.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
The big difference is stock buybacks (artificially IMO) juice the stock price. And typically that's money that could serve better reinvested in the company. This thread had already brought up the multiple ways that the american oil industry has pigeonholed itself, but hey, why invest in infrastructure when we can just buy back our stock?
And dividends artificially reduce it.
By definition dividends (and buybacks) are money that the company doesn't think is better reinvested. What infrastructure do you think they could invest in?
A better solution to that would be to properly tax capital gains.
It's already been posted in the thread.
Now I don't necessarily encourage finding new ways to refine fuel, clearly for the sake of the planet we need other energies developed. But it says something that gas companies are sitting on piles of money (or financing!) to buy back stocks instead of diversifying their refining capacities to lessen their liability to global oil supply instabilities. If there ever was a good example of over-financialization in the US market, this seems as good example as any.
And at least with dividends the dividend typically offsets the stock price reduction. They seem to be a value add for the retail investor whereas stock buy backs are just kickbacks to corporate leadership and hedge funds.
Will building this new refining capacity make them more profitable? The crisis won't last forever and then you will be stuck with a bunch of excess refining capacity that is not competitive. Also there is a general issue with how the structure of executive compensation incentivizes short term stock increases over long term viability but that is a broader issue and frankly has little do with the price of gas.
Do stock buy backs make them more profitable?
Yeah exactly this. Countries have been beating the drum about switching to renewables for a long time and some are actually doing it. Car companies are building electric vehicles. Oil consumption has extremely small growth
Building new oil infrastructure - even if elevated prices last - still might not make sense if it has a 30, 40 year investment timeframe. And with all the noises about bringing oil prices down already they likely aren't getting many years of elevated prices
If the business model is doomed than the buybacks are just looting. The responsible use of the money would be to begin transitioning the company to new markets that aren't dying.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Yes in that they increase the stock price.
They are. But they also might as well reap the rewards from their dying industry while they can
Not every dollar a company makes needs to be reinvested, people here decry exactly that when "endless growth" stocks don't pay out dividends and keep it all
So, no they don't because stock price isn't profits, it's the ostensible value of the company which is correlated but definitely not the same thing.
Sure, but guess which their investors care about more?
UK petrol prices could hit £2.50 a litre and diesel £3, experts tell MPs
That £3 per liter figure for diesel works out at $14.77 per US gallon. And they're talking about rationing the stuff. Potentially before the end of this month.
I have a diesel car. Erk.
Steam | XBL
Be mad at the war profiteers, folks.
Except that price per barrel is set by a futures commodity market not by oil companies? Buyers worried about oil availability are driving up the price not sellers.
They increased their buyback plans because of the situation though.
Yes, they presumably consider that the best use of the windfall. And?
Do you think they would have increased their dividends if buybacks were still legal? I posit they probably wouldn't.
Oil companies sell those futures, though. Because that's the thing with futures, someone has to deliver the goods. And since oil companies are the only way to get bulk oil, they basically are the commodity market.
If they didn't the only reason would be because then they would likely end up cutting their dividend when prices go down again and companies like to have a record of continual increases
You say this like it's a natural and rational thing, and not evidence of a society that has massively screwed up in some way.
This small difference is kind of my whole point about why buybacks are in fact different than dividends and probably should be illegal.
There are good reasons why share buybacks should be illegal or have more regulation, but this isn't one of them. The company not wanting to increase the dividend due to a temporary profitablity increase, because decreasing the dividend has huge negative connotations, and holding on to the cash when they otherwise would have returned it is bad for the owners and the economy as that is unused capital.
dividends don't have to be $X per share every month/year/whatever, you could issue a bonus out-of-cycle dividend to deal with just this scenario
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
They are though: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/20/us-breaks-all-time-record-for-dividends-as-investor-payouts-surge.html
Solar arrays and wind farms. Nothing says Exxon can only buy oil and refine oil. BP rebranded in 2002 to 'Beyond Petroleum'. It was utter bullshit greenwashing, but it could have been meaningful steps to shift towards a non-carbon future.
The problem is those companies have the capital to easily do the various forms of green energy while pushing better ways of using it. They could just tomorrow decide to switch over to a green new deal ideal within a faster timetable than most 5 or so years
And can easily price gouge people/states/countries into accepting the costs
You might be surprised. If all that buyback money went to building solar farms that would increase the expected annual renewable increase by about 10%. Not total deployed capacity, annual new deployments
What i meant to say was they could build the whole network of green energy with ease while switching their whole RnD over to new ways to collect it
But they would control the whole network like they do now
Inflation was 7.9% in Feb. So, they're not growing at all?
Breaking the record for largest money anything doesn't really mean anything, because inflation just creates new larger numbers.
There are several people running for Pennsylvania governor who are blaming Biden for high gas prices
Sure, there is a federal tax on gas, but it's like 15 cents or something
The state tax is much higher, and the feds had nothing to do with that
And you should be mad at the petroleum industry