Date: 2010-04-04 02:42 am (UTC)
So, if we have this picture of organizational life cycles, then we can't have a steady-state economy full of steady-state companies, but instead a hypothetical zero-growth economy would still be full of firms at different stages of the cycle and would oscillate around some average case. Now, connecting back to the idea that the stock buyback as a mechanism of transferring profit from company to stockholder is higher variance than dividends, here's something interesting:

Suppose dividends are the dominant means of effecting that transfer, and you have an opportunity to invest in a startup. You can do that, and if it's successful it'll give you a steady stream of dividends throughout the maturity phase of its life cycle. Even if you hold that stock until it reaches the decline phase and it eventually goes bankrupt, if it had a good successful run your total net present value in that scenario might beat other investments.

On the other hand, with stock buybacks, you lose everything if you hold the stock for the organization's entire life cycle. The existence of a profitable phase and the buybacks guarantees that there will be opportunities to sell that give you a good return, but you do have to take them to get anything at all. It does rather obscure the idea of spending a fixed sum now to gain a future stream of income in the mind of the investor.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Profile

spoonless: (Default)
Domino Valdano

May 2023

S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Aug. 1st, 2025 06:22 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios