Hacker News Reader

Comment by arthurcolle | Hacker News Reader

I think they are actually bad because it enables messing with stock price in a way that is "explainable" when really it is just a bookkeeping exercise

View on HN

Messing in what way? They are buying from willing sellers at the market price, using funds that are announced well before hand in public government filings (Form 10-Q and 8K) are to be used to buyback shares

Sure, bids hitting the orderbook theoretically keeps a stock price higher than the counterfactual where the bids did not exist, but it's simply urban myth that failing companies can keep their stock price high over the long term with buybacks. The math doesn't pencil out.

> Sure, bids hitting the orderbook theoretically keeps a stock price higher

QED: manipulation

> failing companies can keep their stock price high over the long term with buybacks

This assumes they care about the long term.

Am I manipulating a stock when I place a limit buy order? I don't even publicly announce it months beforehand like corporations do.

Are you an executive who will gain millions by doing it, and you are doing it with company money that your have corporate control over? Then yep.

Maybe executives shouldn't have stock. Then it wouldn't be manipulation.

But they do. That is their main compensation people like to point (the CEO isn't really getting paid those millions, it's stocks). So the CEO is paid in a way that encourage the CEO to commit DIRECT stock manipulation.

> when really it is just a bookkeeping exercise

…that’s what a share of stock is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com