IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Of course it does, but I like them better
Like I mentioned in the footnote, I know there are perverse side effects to what I proposed. The main advantage I see is that compared to paying in stock options it is more likely to encourage the "correct" goal: making money for the investors.

Would stockholders prefer to get their money through buybacks because of the more-favorable tax outcome? Sure. But that smacks of the same type of accounting chicanery that we're trying to solve.

IMO the overall problem is still that people view the stock price as the place to make the money. You are supposed to make money from the dividend. There's nothing wrong with buying an undervalued asset, finding the right buyer and making a profit. But that shouldn't be the primary source of income for the economy as a whole.
===
Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978|Andrew Grygus]
New There is chicanery and chicanery
Would stockholders prefer to get their money through buybacks because of the more-favorable tax outcome? Sure. But that smacks of the same type of accounting chicanery that we're trying to solve.

I disagree.

The kind of chicanery that was under discussion comes from businesses incurring large liabilities in ways that they can avoid making their owners (ie shareholders) aware of, causing investors to seriously misjudge the financial outlook of their holdings. This is a cause of serious financial distortions in our markets.

By contrast using stock buybacks instead of dividends so that investors can get taxed at the lower capital gains rates rather than being taxed for income, and then incurring brokerage fees, is the game of arranging financials so that the government categorizes your spend in a way where you pay less tax. This is playing the game of the IRS in the way that Congress and special interests set it up to be played.

Both are clearly chicanery. However I believe that there is an obligation to inform owners as clearly as you can when they ask of what they really do or do not own. Conversely I do not agree with the way that public funds are levied or allocated. Therefore undermining the first bothers me, while the second (when it is done within reason) doesn't.

Cheers,
Ben
"... I couldn't see how anyone could be educated by this self-propagating system in which people pass exams, teach others to pass exams, but nobody knows anything."
--Richard Feynman
     Fortume magazine weighs in on expensing stock options - (lincoln) - (10)
         Here's how to fix it - (drewk) - (8)
             Different accounting practices. - (Brandioch)
             Every fix has its drawbacks - (ben_tilly) - (6)
                 Of course it does, but I like them better - (drewk) - (1)
                     There is chicanery and chicanery - (ben_tilly)
                 Re: liquidate the company and sell it back to shareholders? - (a6l6e6x) - (3)
                     It does compute - (ben_tilly) - (2)
                         So it's like this event today.... - (a6l6e6x) - (1)
                             Like that but... - (ben_tilly)
         Don't quote FASB - (wharris2)

Owner/Operator rig.
59 ms