Interesting how the market has reacted to this news (down 1.7% after hours)
And in this specific case, selling shares to Berkshire at a 5% discount has a pretty clear signalling effect.
The company has less cash in the balance sheet, so its market cap decreases. But there are fewer shares, so the share price is the same.
(This allows hypothetical future growth to disproportionately benefit existing shareholders, but does not intrinsically increase stock price.)
In practice, like another poster pointed out, it signals the company’s belief that its own shares are undervalued, so the market usually increases its estimation of value.
price is more broad and brings in supply vs demand effects.
However, if someone gives you a dividend you typically have to pay tax, and lots of people really hate paying tax.
So buybacks are the preferred price neutral way of dealing with excess cash.
But before-paying-dividend versus after-paying-dividend decreases the value of a share.
In practice there's a lot of issues with asymmetric information. The company knows its own operations and financial position better than random traders on Wall Street. It is rational for it to buy back stock when the market value is lower than the true intrinsic value of the company, and to sell stock when the market value is higher than the true intrinsic value of the company. Therefore, traders often treat buybacks as a signal that the company is "cheap" (at least in the company's own view) and pump up the price accordingly, and treat stock issuances as a sign that company management believes that the stock is "expensive" and push it down accordingly. Company management has more inside information than market participants do, but is usually prohibited from trading on it. Stock issuances and stock buybacks are one of the few cases where insider-initiated trading is legal, because the benefits accrue to the company as a whole rather than a few individuals.
It's not based on the fundamental value of the stock so maybe you wouldn't consider it "first order," but I think you can still call it "mechanical."
So being down 1.7% is literally exactly what you'd expect.
But null hypothesis p=0.3 or something right?
Because the obvious answer is that he has compelling financial data telling him that this $80B now will produce a positive return on investment in the future. But you of course seem to disagree.