ERICOPOLY

There would certainly be a difference unless your costs basis is zero. Example... I buy BAC at $15 -- that's my cost basis. dividend: they pay a $1 dividend. I pay 33% tax on that dividend. I'm left with 67 cents on the dollar. repurchase: Management decides to repurchase $1 of stock for $15 per share. I sell an offsetting amount of shares at $15 price point (same as my cost basis). I'm left with $1 in cash. No taxes whatsoever! I have roughly 50% more cash if management buys back stock instead of paying a dividend.

you are misinterpreting the question. We're talking about managements decision making, not your decision making as a share holder. Yes obviously you shouldn't own overpriced shares, but OP's point was that paying out is always the wrong decision - and it just isn't. Its corp finance 101 not investing 101 I believe your comment is directed at the gentleman who opined on Bank of America's buybacks destroying shareholder value. Of course, in that case it was the shareholder's decision to hold that did the self-inflicted damage. He might have changed the topic of the conversation, and then I replied. However, it's how things go on these boards.

The share price (of the buyback) has absolutely nothing at all to do with it. The person who destroys value by holding overpriced shares is... YOU!!!!!! Don't blame the management, take responsibility for your own boneheaded decisions. They buy some shares that you decide not to sell... you blame them. Hmm... why is it again that you are still holding the shares anyhow?

No, and no. 1) Buyback increases your ownership % stake 2) You then sell an offsetting amount. Voila! 3) No capital is destroyed. You have the cash and the same % ownership stake as before. You avoid being taxed on your cost basis. Compare that to a dividend where you are taxed on the entire distribution.

In all cases... Buybacks return capital to shareholders. No exceptions. Returned, not destroyed.

You have both selfish needs as well as social instincts. They are sometimes at odds and based on your individual situation you may service one at a higher priority to the other. These are instincts though and not Gods that drive us, IMO.

Perhaps settling separately with FHFA was a debacle in that it robbed Eric Holder of a sensational number in his press release. Undeterred, he asked for it anyhow. Essentially doubling that portion, whereas Jamie Dimon had the smarts to bundle the settlements for the more salacious press release.

To take revenge on Eric Holder, I propose BofA runs a "Thank you Eric Holder!" commercial campaign. In that commercial, highlight all the abuses Countrywide did and how all the executives at BofA offer their warm thanks for being able to settle it all with other-people's-money and to not be in prison. It will completely ruin his political career.

I'm relieved. I want this thing settled. I'm happy to wait for 6 weeks to earn the difference (500m per week in pre-tax earnings). Just give them $17b if it will make them go away. I want the stock to climb without an endless drumbeat of FIRREA in the news.

These is still something more related to foreclosures that they can be sued for. It was mentioned in the filings under legal risks or somethings like that.

Perhaps it's easier to get a dividend approved since the government wants the tax revenue. Later, they can bail you out with the money they've been taking from you all along.

Electric bicycles so that TSLA short sellers will still be able to afford some mode of electric transportation.

http://fortune.com/2014/08/01/teslas-musk-were-not-currently-showing-all-of-our-cards/ “People have gotten used to us showing all of our cards,” Musk said. Then he paused. “We’re not currently showing all of our cards.” Piling into the intrigue, he later added: “Our cap ex and R&D numbers are better than they appear because there are things you don’t know about.”

Please stop with all the evolutionary references. I respect your views on social issues and I agree with most of them. If you don't like people going to hookers, fine, but don't try to rationalize things by fitting them in your self-constructed moral framework, where, if you don't believe in your specific god and your specific values then it's ok to murder your boss, cheat on your wife and inject your baby daughter with heroin. Your line of reasoning on morality is outdated, egocentric and doesn't stand up to scrutiny, as several people tried to explain to you in previous threads on similar issues. Besides that, your constant references are a very childish way to end any productive discussion. "You don't agree with me? You must be a barbarian living in the animal kingdom ... ". Right. Some people have a more nuanced view of what's right and what's wrong. They try not to listen to their gut feelings (like those in the animal kingdom ;)). writser, that's the thing. I've thought about this a lot and I think Eric will agree. There is no "true" right and wrong. All of our brains are wired in a certain way and we don't control the original wiring. Our evolutionary instincts are just that. Some people are wired to steal others are wired to sacrifice their lives for a stranger. Neither is better or worse. They are simply different. The bottom line is this: if there is no deity, there is nothing that is moral or immoral. Actions are simply that: actions. We can glam it up and say "well if it causes harm, it's bad." That's arbitrary though. We can say we "reason" and that's why we do certain things. Indeed, even that is arbitrary. One person may "reason" almost anything. I have no problem with anyone who is a deist, theist, agnostic or atheist. I do find it a little puzzling when they aren't logically consistent though. That goes even when a Christian is for the death penalty or an atheist grumbling about social rights. If life is valuable, then even a person on death row has value. If we really are just stardust, don't expect people to get up in arms about people dying in a foreign country. Morals aside, legislators could take a hypocratic oath to "do no harm". Policies that lead to an increase of human trafficking of sex slaves could be seen as doing harm.

The problem with democracy is that the tastes and preferences of the majority are forced upon the minority with guns. (and they think it is funny) I don't see how that's a problem. That's how it is throughout the animal kingdom - the strongest survive. Isn't infidelity merely the emergence of a stronger woman, who can better compete for the man's attention?

If you eat badly and don't exercise, you potentially rob your wife of precious years of your life. We need to implement a paternalistic totalitarian fascist state to make you eat your veggies, take the stairs, and brush your teeth... Stoning for leaving the toilet seat up.

Your wife wouldn't be a victim of force/violence/aggression, no. We don't (and shouldn't) lock people up for cheating on their wives. As far as human trafficking goes. Car sales are legal and stolen car trafficking occurs. Selling cars is engaging in peaceful free-market commerce, trafficking in stolen cars is not. Prostitution is simply engaging in peaceful free-market commerce. Kidnapping and selling human beings against their will is not. In both cases the peaceful free-market activity (voluntary commerce between consenting adults) should be legal, the theft and/or violence should not. Are there any examples of human trafficking where the service is legal? Like what if you kidnapped a psychologist and forced her to see clients, pocketing her fee for yourself? Things like that just don't happen with legal services AFAIK.

It would certainly be interesting if the police kicked in your door after surveillance footage caught you with your hand up your secretary's skirt. After all, your wife is a victim of infidelity and the police must enforce marriage vows.

The trouble with the Mrs is one example. Your guilt is another. These are examples that keep us monogamous without needing police intervention. However, I can't say being married is a violation of our instincts. There are examples of monogamy throughout the animal kingdom, even amongst primates. Same for polyamory. So are you being driven by your instincts or your morals? It might just be convenient that you can be morally superior whilst merely acting within your instincts. However, there is sexual variation amongst species as well. Another person may be acting within his instincts and yet have multiple partners at once. He is not acting outside of his idea of moral behavior. We are social animals with social instincts. Typically, if you feel bad about something it's because your actions were harmful to another -- this is going to happen if you are programmed to cooperate with others within a social unit. Problems arise when some of us are programmed with monogamous instincts, some with polyamorous, and some with homosexual. We are going to get at each other's throats as to what is "moral" or not. That's because of the lack of understanding how we are different. Eric, you can use the same argument for theft. Madoff was acting on his instincts - greed. Some people may have the polyamorous instinct and some may have the theft instinct. Some may have the monogamous instinct and the charity instinct. None of these are more moral or immoral than the other - all simply instincts. There was a victim in Madoff's crime. It's like complaining that your dentist is committing a crime for not doing your dental work for free. So you should imprison him. However, if he cleans your teeth for free it's not a crime. You wanted your teeth cleaned -- you are not a victim of the dentist. Now, if you want to get off, how are you a victim of the prostitute? Your wife wouldn't be a victim? First, the law isn't there to protect marriage. They lock up unwedded people all the same. You can legalize prostitution for unwedded persons if that's your chief complaint. Next, what is the legal remedy for infidelity? Prison?

There was a prostitution sting in the local area where the police reported that prostitution is not a victimless crime because of the human trafficking. Uh huh... which is a result of it being illegal. So you start off without any victims. Then you make it illegal which create victims where none existed before, and then you reason that enforcing the law is the best policy to save the victims. It's tragic this circle of logic.

The NFL can throw a person out of the league if they want. I would be irritated if the police then put him in prison too.

It's actually one of those professions that provides the best customer service. Funny that BofA is allowed to keep it's door open, and some of these women go to jail.

The trouble with the Mrs is one example. Your guilt is another. These are examples that keep us monogamous without needing police intervention. However, I can't say being married is a violation of our instincts. There are examples of monogamy throughout the animal kingdom, even amongst primates. Same for polyamory. So are you being driven by your instincts or your morals? It might just be convenient that you can be morally superior whilst merely acting within your instincts. However, there is sexual variation amongst species as well. Another person may be acting within his instincts and yet have multiple partners at once. He is not acting outside of his idea of moral behavior. We are social animals with social instincts. Typically, if you feel bad about something it's because your actions were harmful to another -- this is going to happen if you are programmed to cooperate with others within a social unit. Problems arise when some of us are programmed with monogamous instincts, some with polyamorous, and some with homosexual. We are going to get at each other's throats as to what is "moral" or not. That's because of the lack of understanding how we are different. Eric, you can use the same argument for theft. Madoff was acting on his instincts - greed. Some people may have the polyamorous instinct and some may have the theft instinct. Some may have the monogamous instinct and the charity instinct. None of these are more moral or immoral than the other - all simply instincts. There was a victim in Madoff's crime. It's like complaining that your dentist is committing a crime for not doing your dental work for free. So you should imprison him. However, if he cleans your teeth for free it's not a crime. You wanted your teeth cleaned -- you are not a victim of the dentist. Now, if you want to get off, how are you a victim of the prostitute?

Politically, when you decriminalize drugs you just call it "economic sanctions against Al Qaeda". That way Fox News will support it.

A while ago I watched a documentary on Netflix about why we "fall in love". I think this is it: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/brainsex-why-we-fall-in-love/ It showed brain-scans of various couples. The brains of some married couples were still "in love" after a couple of decades of marriage. I believe it also compared the brains of some individuals (not monogamous) with brains of primates that are not monogamous. It was interesting. I think it explains a lot -- some people just can't stay married. Biologically. For others, they can't understand why anyone would cheat on their spouse. People are different. Not immoral, just different.