Hacker News Reader

Great for executives and shareholders, many of which probably work at 3M. What else was management suppose to do with the cash they are generating? And, why was the debt cheap in the first place?

View on HN

That decision benefits few at the cost of many (and eventually the few, just later). It is easy to imagine better uses of cash than full dedication to a buyback. Personally, I would make sure that R&D has plenty of funding, buy bonds, modernize old equipment, if necessary get consultants for leasing and insurance expenses,....basically hedge against risks and invest in competitiveness. Buybacks are fine to an extent. I think you know why the debt was cheap.

1. Corporations exist to benefit their shareholders over some term (short, long, whatever) as the shareholders ask for, through their elected board of directors. I tend to be sympathetic to what you're saying about taking the long view (esp. for a company like 3M) but the many vs. few doesn't make sense in a corporate context. It's the now vs. the later.

2. "Buy bonds"?? A corporate CFO would be pilloried for buying bonds. The shareholders are emphatically not interested in the CFO playing amateur bond-picker in order to generate a bunch of double-taxable income.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com