Skip navigation
NintendoAge
Welcome, Guest! Please Login or Join
Loading...

You know what some people want? Election Talk.

Aug 03 at 3:04:05 PM
Californication (34)

< Meka Chicken >
Posts: 923 - Joined: 05/13/2016
Profile
Here is Fox News of all people repeating everything I said about the Chinese tariffs in the locked thread.




Aug 03 at 4:04:11 PM
MODERATOR
the tall guy (130)
avatar
(Randy the Astonishing) < Bowser >
Posts: 5668 - Joined: 05/13/2008
Tennessee
Profile
Perfect! Feel free to continue.  

-------------------------

"Meeting internet dudes is what being a dude on the internet is all about!"  ~OSG 


Aug 03 at 4:16:06 PM
MODERATOR
MrWunderful (289)
avatar
(Corey ) < Wiz's Mom >
Posts: 12978 - Joined: 12/21/2013
California
Profile
Well, I mean SOME people don't want election talk.

They want people to reinforce their beliefs  

Hopefully Estil will post some convincing points!

-------------------------

www.videogamesage.com...

Aug 03 at 4:24:07 PM
barrels (149)
avatar
< Bowser >
Posts: 7319 - Joined: 11/25/2011
Other
Profile
I hate Fox News but I have great respect for Shep. Sometimes I wonder why he still has a job there, but I'm so glad he does.

Aug 04 at 1:50:26 AM
Californication (34)

< Meka Chicken >
Posts: 923 - Joined: 05/13/2016
Profile
Here is a new video making the same point I made yesterday about America losing its place among the international community.

The moderator references a pew research poll.





Here's is a link to the pew research polls with additional data.

People see U.S. power and influence as a greater threat in the Trump era | Pew Research Center
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-...

Where are the people that said I was wrong?


Edited: 08/04/2019 at 01:57 AM by Californication

Aug 04 at 2:17:26 AM
Richardhead (13)
avatar
< Ridley Wrangler >
Posts: 2964 - Joined: 03/30/2015
Colorado
Profile
Shit yeah! Another political thread in a game forum!
I love this place.
Can we PLEASE get a new banner ad! Or is it an ad banner?

Aug 04 at 10:49:39 AM
MuNKeY (151)
avatar
< Master Higgins >
Posts: 8976 - Joined: 07/02/2011
Other
Profile
You want to KNOW what I WANT?! Tacos! ...playing space really works up an appetite.

-------------------------


 

Aug 04 at 11:10:49 AM
DaneNES (7)
avatar
< Meka Chicken >
Posts: 835 - Joined: 02/25/2016
North Carolina
Profile
Whatever dudes. NA is where I get my news from..🤤
and what better place to share political beliefs than a forum NOT bombarded by people shoving political points and beliefs down your thought.... like Facebook...where this conversation belongs..

-------------------------

“Be quiet brain, or ill stab you with a Q-tip” ~Homer Simpson 


Edited: 08/04/2019 at 11:15 AM by DaneNES

Aug 04 at 11:19:56 AM
CMR (4)
avatar
< El Ripper >
Posts: 1441 - Joined: 04/26/2008
United States
Profile
I'm going to take a wait and see attitude to see how this plays out. Trump has been right about things before, and we've come a long way in four years. Remember when Obama told him it would take a magic wand to fix the economy? Regardless of how you feel about Trump, I think the US is doing well, and he wasn't elected to be president of the world. And what exactly is the Pew results showing? That other countries don't like it when we're doing well?

Aug 04 at 11:35:16 AM
Scrobins09 (8)
avatar
(Sean ) < Eggplant Wizard >
Posts: 256 - Joined: 06/10/2018
District of Columbia
Profile
Except most of the reason the economy is doing well is what Obama's administration did, but because those are long-term processes, Trump is taking all the credit while weakening those gains.

Aug 04 at 1:20:45 PM
kguillemette (13)

(Kyle Guillemette) < Meka Chicken >
Posts: 520 - Joined: 11/01/2016
New Hampshire
Profile
My main problem with Trump is the rhetoric he uses. Granted, without that rhetoric, he wasn't getting elected in the first place. You know, things like "lock her up" and "send them back". It just set an example of uncivility. Now both sides of the aisle follow that example. It would be pointless, and quite frankly dangerous, to attempt to replace him with someone else uncivil as the leader of America. And that's my impression of the majority of the democratic field save Biden or Gabbard.

-------------------------
FT/FS list  â€‹â€‹â€‹http://nintendoage.com/forum/mess...

Gamecube needs list â€‹http://nintendoage.com/forum/mess...

Aug 04 at 2:28:58 PM
Californication (34)

< Meka Chicken >
Posts: 923 - Joined: 05/13/2016
Profile
Originally posted by: CMR

I'm going to take a wait and see attitude to see how this plays out. Trump has been right about things before, and we've come a long way in four years. Remember when Obama told him it would take a magic wand to fix the economy? Regardless of how you feel about Trump, I think the US is doing well, and he wasn't elected to be president of the world. And what exactly is the Pew results showing? That other countries don't like it when we're doing well?





If the economy was doing well then the fed wouldn't have lowered interest rates. The economy has been slowing down and they are trying to juice it up with lower interest rates so it doesn't completly fall apart before elections.

I think I read that they had the largest number of stock buy backs last year. That generally means that companys are buying back their stock to make their earnings look higher than they actually were. If company's are doing well and slowly growing as expected they shouldn't have to manipulate their stock price.

I'm not really familiar with the manufacturing under Trump. I'd have to look into that. I do know that under Trump, more jobs are being off shored than before.

The U.S. like a business maintains its power through its relationships with other countrys. Some of the more obvious ways we need other people to enforce our power: trade embargos, sanctions, intelligence gathering, foreign military bases, extradition, supply chaiins, imports, borrowing money.

I think the foreign country's are mad because they cannot anticipate what we are going to do. For example is the United States going to go start a war with Venezuela and Iran for no reason? Why did the U.S. move the capital of Israel when that is going to incite violence? And if I were the leader of a foreign country, I would be most angry that the u.s. president's trade war is slowly pushing the world to a global recession.


Edited: 08/04/2019 at 06:29 PM by Californication

Aug 04 at 5:06:30 PM
MuNKeY (151)
avatar
< Master Higgins >
Posts: 8976 - Joined: 07/02/2011
Other
Profile
...I got my tacos, we're good now.

-------------------------


 

Aug 04 at 5:39:14 PM
buttheadrulesagain (20)
avatar
(Jorge Juarez) < King Solomon >
Posts: 4206 - Joined: 12/24/2009
Mexico
Profile
Now with the 3 shootings that happened in the last 24 hours, it will be interest to see the excuses and waffling about gun regulation from both parties (specially Republicans, of course).

-------------------------

Aug 04 at 6:47:27 PM
Sign Collector Guy (8)
avatar
< Ridley Wrangler >
Posts: 2678 - Joined: 07/29/2016
United States
Profile
Biden will get the Dem nom.

Aug 04 at 9:35:18 PM
arch_8ngel (68)
avatar
(Nathan ?) < Mario >
Posts: 35271 - Joined: 06/12/2007
Virginia
Profile
Originally posted by: Californication



I think I read that they had the largest number of stock buy backs last year. That generally means that companys are buying back their stock to make their earnings look higher than they actually were. If company's are doing well and slowly growing as expected they shouldn't have to manipulate their stock price.





How would a buyback make "earnings look higher"?

Buybacks are a low risk way for companies to pay out value to shareholders.

-------------------------
 


Edited: 08/04/2019 at 09:35 PM by arch_8ngel

Aug 04 at 10:18:52 PM
Californication (34)

< Meka Chicken >
Posts: 923 - Joined: 05/13/2016
Profile
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
 
Originally posted by: Californication

I think I read that they had the largest number of stock buy backs last year. That generally means that companys are buying back their stock to make their earnings look higher than they actually were. If company's are doing well and slowly growing as expected they shouldn't have to manipulate their stock price.



How would a buyback make "earnings look higher"? Buybacks are a low risk way for companies to pay out value to shareholders.
When a company buy’s back stock, that stock is no longer outstanding, so when you calculate earnings per share, there are less units of stock to spread earnings over making earnings per share go up. I think there is an indirect effect that will also increase the value of the stock because of a stock buyback, but this is the way I was taught. I’m pretty sure at one point it was mostly illegal. 

 

Aug 04 at 10:50:30 PM
arch_8ngel (68)
avatar
(Nathan ?) < Mario >
Posts: 35271 - Joined: 06/12/2007
Virginia
Profile
Originally posted by: Californication

Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
 
Originally posted by: Californication

I think I read that they had the largest number of stock buy backs last year. That generally means that companys are buying back their stock to make their earnings look higher than they actually were. If company's are doing well and slowly growing as expected they shouldn't have to manipulate their stock price.



How would a buyback make "earnings look higher"? Buybacks are a low risk way for companies to pay out value to shareholders.
When a company buy's back stock, that stock is no longer outstanding, so when you calculate earnings per share, there are less units of stock to spread earnings over making earnings per share go up. I think there is an indirect effect that will also increase the value of the stock because of a stock buyback, but this is the way I was taught. I'm pretty sure at one point it was mostly illegal. 

 





I think you are probably mistaken if you think they can meaningfully goose the EPS this way for any decent sized company. And doubly so if you think analysts and quants wouldn't be wise to it, if it would have otherwise had an effect.

Earnings (in the absolute sense) definitely don't increase from this kind of thing. (Which is what it originally sounded like you might be implying)

The real story behind buybacks is shareholders and boards demanding some distribution of value so they can partially cash out. Companies that don't pay out regularly via dividend will do this from time to time.

-------------------------
 

Aug 04 at 11:11:34 PM
Californication (34)

< Meka Chicken >
Posts: 923 - Joined: 05/13/2016
Profile
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
 
Originally posted by:
 
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
 
Originally posted by: Californication

I think I read that they had the largest number of stock buy backs last year. That generally means that companys are buying back their stock to make their earnings look higher than they actually were. If company's are doing well and slowly growing as expected they shouldn't have to manipulate their stock price.



How would a buyback make "earnings look higher"? Buybacks are a low risk way for companies to pay out value to shareholders.
When a company buy's back stock, that stock is no longer outstanding, so when you calculate earnings per share, there are less units of stock to spread earnings over making earnings per share go up. I think there is an indirect effect that will also increase the value of the stock because of a stock buyback, but this is the way I was taught. I'm pretty sure at one point it was mostly illegal. 

 



I think you are probably mistaken if you think they can meaningfully goose the EPS this way for any decent sized company. And doubly so if you think analysts and quants wouldn't be wise to it, if it would have otherwise had an effect. Earnings (in the absolute sense) definitely don't increase from this kind of thing. (Which is what it originally sounded like you might be implying) The real story behind buybacks is shareholders and boards demanding some distribution of value so they can partially cash out. Companies that don't pay out regularly via dividend will do this from time to time.
I mean that was what I was taught. I just did a google search to double check and multiple investment sites say the same thing. Two sites I glanced at say that it also potentially increases capital contribution and overall value in the short term from investors expecting stock buy backs.





 

Aug 05 at 12:04:24 AM
gunpei (10)
avatar
< Ridley Wrangler >
Posts: 2914 - Joined: 02/08/2015
Federated States of Micronesia
Profile
Originally posted by: Sign Collector Guy

Biden will get the Dem nom.
If he wins the primary election, he will lose the general. 
Originally posted by: Californication

When a company buy’s back stock, that stock is no longer outstanding, so when you calculate earnings per share, there are less units of stock to spread earnings over making earnings per share go up. 
Does this mean the shares that are bought back basically disappear and the total market value is then redivided amongst the remaining shares held outside the company? That sounds like another way to say what you said, and I don't think it is correct.

Aug 05 at 12:39:13 AM
jacob... (17)
avatar
< Eggplant Wizard >
Posts: 473 - Joined: 09/30/2015
California
Profile
Originally posted by: gunpei
 
Originally posted by: Sign Collector Guy

Biden will get the Dem nom.
If he wins the primary election, he will lose the general. 

Originally posted by: Californication

When a company buy’s back stock, that stock is no longer outstanding, so when you calculate earnings per share, there are less units of stock to spread earnings over making earnings per share go up. 
Does this mean the shares that are bought back basically disappear and the total market value is then redivided amongst the remaining shares held outside the company? That sounds like another way to say what you said, and I don't think it is correct.


californications point is correct. companies buying back stock causes stock prices to increase. and it could be a strategy to used by companies to hide value decreases in shares/market volatility.
 

-------------------------
"its not all about dat 'tendo   "

link to my wanted
link to my for trade


Edited: 08/05/2019 at 12:49 AM by jacob...

Aug 05 at 1:05:33 AM
Californication (34)

< Meka Chicken >
Posts: 923 - Joined: 05/13/2016
Profile
Gunpei - When a company buys back the shares they can either keep them as treasury stock or retire them. It doesn't matter which method they choose because earnings are divided among shares that are issued and outstanding. When a company buys back stock they are no longer outstanding.

To add a little to what I said, this article says there were $806 billion in stock buy backs in 2018, UP 55% from 2017. Stock buybacks are expected to continue increasing to $940 billion this year. That is almost 1 trillion dollars spent to make company's look more profitable. So as I said before, this economy is not in great shape; stock buy backs and interest rates are making the economy look better than it really is.

https://www.kiplinger.com/article...


Edited: 08/05/2019 at 01:20 AM by Californication

Aug 05 at 6:46:23 AM
arch_8ngel (68)
avatar
(Nathan ?) < Mario >
Posts: 35271 - Joined: 06/12/2007
Virginia
Profile
Originally posted by: jacob...

Originally posted by: gunpei
 
Originally posted by: Sign Collector Guy

Biden will get the Dem nom.
If he wins the primary election, he will lose the general. 

Originally posted by: Californication

When a company buy's back stock, that stock is no longer outstanding, so when you calculate earnings per share, there are less units of stock to spread earnings over making earnings per share go up. 
Does this mean the shares that are bought back basically disappear and the total market value is then redivided amongst the remaining shares held outside the company? That sounds like another way to say what you said, and I don't think it is correct.


californications point is correct. companies buying back stock causes stock prices to increase. and it could be a strategy to used by companies to hide value decreases in shares/market volatility.
 





I wouldn't dispute that companies can use buybacks to smooth volatility, or to maintain price momentum (or to push their price up from extreme lows like in the great recession).

My issue with what Californication said was implying that EPS was the dominant reason for buybacks, and while EPS does improve, it assumes that the majority of market players are ignorant to it being a potentially manipulated metric in the event of a buyback.

(And my initial question had to do with him saying earnings in the generic, rather than EPS, so I was clarifying whether he though actual absolute earnings could be manipulated in this way)

Retail investors (that might be fooled by not doing all of their due diligence to see that EPS only increased due to a buyback, rather than actually having an increase in earnings) make up a fairly small portion of the market compared to automated trading and institutional investors.

I would expect institutional investors to "know better", rather than be fooled, given the much more comprehensive analysis that is possible nowadays over 100 years ago, so it makes me doubt that EPS manipulation would be a meaningful driver over the much more obvious reasons of consolidating ownership and pleasing shareholders with a non-dividend payout while maintaining price momentum.

-------------------------
 


Edited: 08/05/2019 at 06:50 AM by arch_8ngel

Aug 05 at 9:03:09 AM
Californication (34)

< Meka Chicken >
Posts: 923 - Joined: 05/13/2016
Profile
Archangel, let me get this straight. You think stock buy backs aren't affecting the stock market and therefore you think the economy is doing fine if you look at the stock market as a reflection of the economy.

Aug 05 at 9:16:03 AM
arch_8ngel (68)
avatar
(Nathan ?) < Mario >
Posts: 35271 - Joined: 06/12/2007
Virginia
Profile
Originally posted by: Californication

Archangel, let me get this straight. You think stock buy backs aren't affecting the stock market and therefore you think the economy is doing fine if you look at the stock market as a reflection of the economy.
I did not say they aren't affecting the market, and don't serve to bolster prices  (obviously ANY big purchse of a stock has to inherently prop prices)

I am saying that analysts should be smart enough to understand the impact of a buyback on EPS, so as to discount the impact of a buyback in that regard as to how the analysts view the quality of the stock and the company.


So "let me get this straight"... YOU think that professional analysts for institutional investors and automated trading algorithms don't understand the impact of a buyback on EPS and are somehow unable to discount that in their analysis of earnings reports?





You reference $800B in buybacks.   (for a sense of market-scale, total market capitalization (worldwide) is nearly 70 TRILLION dollars, and US-only is $30 Trillion)

So in terms of scale of impact, while it is a big number relative to other years of buybacks in recent memory, in terms of total shares outstanding, it is only 0.3% of US shares.  (would be a bit harder to figure out how much active volume it constituted, though)
 

-------------------------
 


Edited: 08/05/2019 at 09:30 AM by arch_8ngel