comment: >
  
  Can't wait for the day this company ceases trading. I hate them.
context: Their stock price jumped 20% after this buyback was announced. Meta laid off 11,000 employees in November and has hinted at more layoffs in the future.
  Just a reminder that stock buybacks were illegal until the 80’s under Reagan
  EDIT: for some quick math, if you include the $28 billion stock buyback Meta did in 2022, that means Meta spent roughly $6.2 million in stock buyback per employee laid off. >
  
  Sorry for dumb question but... what does a stock buyback do that raises stock price?
  Is it they're saying they'll buy X amount. So that pushes price up even though they're losing a ton of money, thus creating a sort of false image of being more valuable than they are? >
  
  Companies have a value. Let's say $100. Companies have a number of shares outstanding, let's say 10. Therefore, the company's share price is $100/10 or $10 per share. When a company buys back stocks, let's say they buy back 2 of their 10 outstanding shares, now there are only 8 outstanding shares, but the company 'value' hasn't changed, it's still $100, so now, $100/8 shares = ~$12 per share. The price went up 'naturally'. >
  
  Thank you! >
  
  And again
  This was considered stock price manipulation and illegal until the 1980's
  making it legal was part of the GOP's "free market", deregulation, "Reagan Revolution"
  It was a CHOICE to allow this
  it didn't "just happen"
  it is not "natural"
  and we can CHOOSE to do things differently >
  
  Wait wait you mean a company shouldn't be allowed to buy back shares and then reissue shares and then buy back shares and then reissue shares and then buy back shares >
  
  Made me giggle big time. Very well put. >
  
  But why male models >
  
  I‘m a bit pissed and feeling powerless against the investor class. Record profits, layoffs, PPP funds turned into grants and used for stock buybacks and everything is an excuse to raise prices. >
  
  What's infuriating about the PPP loans being forgiven is that business owners got millions of dollars forgiven but regular people getting 20k in federal student loans forgiven, hell no. can't have that. >
  
  We live in a place where not paying taxes, selling out your country for money, and enriching yourself from the tax base is considered "smart people stuff."
  Until people decide there's better business role models than "just don't pay your contractors or taxes and manipulate your stock price publicly," we're kind of screwed. >
  
  And they've laid off how many employees so far?
  Stock buybacks and layoffs. Name a more iconic duo. >
  
  Ambiguously Gay Duo >
  
  Or... $3.6 Million per laid off Facebook employee
  I can almost guarantee that none of those laid off employees made anywhere close to that though. >
  
  Yeah some did lol, very few. 400k is not uncommon though.
  I can tell you the employee chat groups are pretty happy with the buybacks. We get paid over half our comp(depending on level) in stock.
  In big tech, employees ARE major shareholders. The stock doing well is good for us.
  The layoffs were absolutely necessary, we overhired. the rate of employee growth last year was insane. That’s the execs fault, but you don’t give into sunk cost fallacy there. >
  
  Wait, is that actual stock or options?
  And if it is options what is the vesting schedule? >
  
  RSUs, you get a big chunk of stock every quarter to do what you want with. >
  
  RSUs... Hmmm, that can be good if the vesting period is not too long, but the tax liability can be pretty steep when they become fully vested.
  I guess I can see why Facebook employees would be for anything that Zuck does that results in " Stonks Go Up!" >
  
  with RSUs your cost basis occurs when they vest. So if your grant price was $100 and it went up to $200 by the time they vest and you sell at $225, your capital gain is $25, not $125. >
  
  That’s nice! In Germany you have to pay income tax on the $100 difference and capital gain tax on the $25. >
  
  In the US, you pay income tax on the $200 value when it vests, which is covered by automatically selling some of the vested stock, and then you'd pay tax on the $25 gains when you sell. So I think you end up paying the same tax, just maybe at different times. >
  
  Stock buybacks need to be made illegal again. >
  
  I think the difference for me is that dividends create tangible wealth where buybacks don't necessarily do that. If you give me a $200 dividend, then I immediately have access to that money. Companies over the last decade have turned hundreds of billions of dollars from stock buybacks into nothing as the stock market sees turmoil and the price of the stock plummets. The only wealth created in buybacks are the bonus payouts that executives receive by delivering results theough EPS. This is why buybacks should go back to being illegal in my opinion. I get that the buyback results in less available shares which should increase the value of each outstanding share, but the stock market is so disconnected from reality these days that I think buybacks have done nothing but hurt Americans and our economy. >
  
  
  I think the difference for me is that dividends create tangible wealth where buybacks don't necessarily do that.
  
  But they do?
  You are ignoring the people who sold the share back to the company. With a dividend, the companies money is evenly distributed among all shareholders and everyone has a taxable event. 
  If they buy back shares, then the shareholders who chose to sell will get the full value of their shares as a taxable event, and the shareholders who held on to their shares will see just their portfolio balance increase. 
  The cash for dividends are split over all shareholders and buybacks are given to whomever wants to sell their shares. Both create immediate taxable events for the full amount of cash the company chose to spend on the dividend/buyback. >
  
  From a public perspective, this sort of activity should absolutely be a taxable event. They're not investing in the company in a meaningful way. Tax it. >
  
  It is a taxable event? Anyone who sold their stock (the counter party required for the company to buyback stock… can’t buy if no one is selling) has a taxable event. 
  Example: I bought the stock at $10, 5 years later the company performs stock buybacks when it is worth $100. I decide at this time to sell my stock. I get $100 for it, and I have a taxable event on the gain of $90. 
  Depending on the volume of sells and buys, it might not be the company that bought my stock but it doesn’t matter. If it was my sale that matched up with the company then it was someone else’s. 
  Either way, the company buying back a stock caused one interested seller to cause a taxable event. >
  
  Yes... That's not taxed. The moment the money is spent on the shareholders instead of business operations, it should be taxed, just like dividends. >
  
  I don’t really understand what this means or the gravity of it. Why are people so mad? Can someone ELI5 this to me I don’t understand stocks at all >
  
  Stocks are shares of ownership in a company. I buy a share of Meta stock for the current share price and I now own a very small percentage of the company. Stock buybacks are when a company uses cash funds to buy a chunk of their stock back from investors. This removes it from the market, so now the remaining shares are all worth more. It's basically a way for corporations to give earnings back to their investors. 
  The reason people are mad is that Meta also just layed off around 11000 people to lower their costs. So that $40 billion could've gone to keeping those employees or increasing wages. >
  
  Not enough money for raises, they said.
  Need to do layoffs to stay profitable, they said.
  That's a load of bullshit, $40Bn said. >
  
  So glad they laid off so many people, so they could afford the stock buy back.
  Yay capitalism. /s >
  
  This is the natural outcome of capitalist economies. Workers get the shaft so capitalists can get richer. Eventually the workers won't have enough money to buy what the capitalists are selling >
  
  Layoffs. Buybacks. Layoffs. Buybacks. Layoffs. Buybacks. Ad nauseam. >
  
  This was illegal in 1982 for a good reason. And now we can see why. >
  
  Reagan destroyed this country.... >
  
  I mean, he was an actor, and not a particularly good one either. What did we expect? >
  
  First big corporations, whine about being forced to raise prices because of XYZ, and then they have so much cash on hand that they buy their own stock back. Our useless media thinks this is normal. >
  
  Democrats need to campaign on outlawing stock buybacks! >
  
  It's time to end this capitalist charade.  These rich fat fucks have fucked us all over. >
  
  Too bad the people that knew bought after hours. >
  
  Never saw this coming. This is a totally new thing >
  
  Don’t listen to anything they say. Their actions speak louder than words. >
  
  Then they’ll cry when a real recession hits since they’re burning cash and apply for a gov loan to get them through and never pay it back >
  
  I love capitalism. Fire more people. Rake in all those profits. Sit on your mountains of gold while the rest of us suffer. >
  
  How you know zuckerberg is out of ideas:
  1- laying off 11,000 workers he doesn’t know what do do with them
  2- then buying back $40B in stock because he doesn’t know what projects to reinvest in >
  
  Large corporations are ruining this country. They buy out or ruin any kind of competition, then treat employees and customers like pawns in order to for the top executives and investors even more filthy rich.
  I've been around for over 70 years, and have seen that treatment of employees and customers continue to deteriorate. That's not to mention how their products get more expensive and more cheaply built or downsized. Also, a lifetime warranty is a joke - as soon as that company is taken over by a larger corporation, that warranty is no longer honored.
  The idea of corporations is good in theory, but as soon as the greedy assholes rise to the top they become pure shit. >
  
  Couldn't you buyback, buyback, and then eventually the company owns more shares than anyone else and they hostile take it back over and go private? >
  
  With stock buy backs, the company owns the stock, which means that the shareholders own the stock.  To take it private, a third party would have to buy a controlling share. >
  
  Stock buybacks should be illegal. >
  
  They were until the mid 80's or early 90's as I recall. >
  
  Why invest in employees when you could buy back stocks >
  
  More news about fantasy numbers to us normal poor folk. >
  
  Can someone explain like I’m five for stock buybacks I don’t really understand it. >
  
  Companies use their free cash flow to buyback shares. This lowers the share count and increases earnings per share. Less shares to divide earnings by. 
  They could pass this $40B into other better things like employees or doing better things for the planet and paying some higher taxes but instead they buy their own shares. >
  
  And the bubble just grows bigger and bigger.