Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft To Buy Back $40bn of Its Shares

phantomflanflinger writes "As you may have heard already, Microsoft have announced their intentions to buy back $40 billion in stock from their investors, in the biggest single buy-back plan in business history. The announcement has given Microsoft shares a small gain but they still stand significantly below their level in January — before Microsoft's unsolicited bid for Yahoo!. The announcement of the plan has also created new speculation about a now-or-never deal with Yahoo!."

14 of 345 comments (clear)

  1. $40,000,000,000 by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Isn't that almost all of their spare cash?

    1. Re:$40,000,000,000 by Intron · · Score: 4, Interesting

      1. Announce plan to buy Yahoo!
      2. Watch stock plummet
      3. Buy back $40bn
      4. Profit. Yahoo!

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
  2. It's funny, they've been having a lot of trouble by jollyreaper · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Microsoft has made a lot of money off of OS and office products but hasn't been equally successful with the side ventures. Vista has been such a tremendous flop, I wonder what their internal projections are looking like for the next five years. I think it's arguable to say that the advances they've made in other segments stem directly from their control of the desktop. If they lose the desktop battle, will their products remain compelling enough to hold onto the beachheads in the server room, in the development shops? I doubt they'll dry up and blow away overnight but it looks like there's a serious possibility of a reduced relevance in the future.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  3. Probably Better than Losing it Bit by Bit by CodeBuster · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is probably better than losing the whole pile bit by bit to enterprising attorneys and their clever lawsuits AND with the markets being so depressed right now and the number of good alternative investments diminished it probably does make sense to recapture some of those outstanding shares while the price is still attractive.

  4. Debt is cheaper by zubikov · · Score: 4, Interesting

    All this means is that debt is a cheaper and more risk-averse way for them to finance their crappy commercials and world takeover plans. In this market, you can see billions in capital evaporate in minutes. Not to side with Microsoft, but it was a good move as the market is about to take a dump.

  5. Mark Cuban was right ?? by pacificleo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Mark cuban recently wrote a post about the correlation between shares Buyback and Collapse of Financial powerhouse like AIG-Lehman and ML . I hope MSFT can avoid that fate. http://blogmaverick.com/2008/09/16/the-aig-lehman-merrill-lynch-link/

    --
    somethings are best left unsaid , I am one of those things
  6. Re:Why do companies do this? by Rayeth · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Mod Parent Up Informative

    Also note that by doing this Microsoft isn't required to use all of that $40bn either. If they see something more attractive they can always shift the money around later.

    Also note that just sitting on a ridiculous amount of money (like the ~$30bn Microsoft has) is a terrible financial move. The board is right to do something with that money, and if they can't get Yahoo (all or part) with it, then best to do something worthwhile rather than sit on their hands and hope something good comes along

  7. Re:Could someone explain to me... by zubikov · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Microsoft can loose a lot of money quickly being in the equity markets, especially when the markets move +/- 5% a day. Their CFO concluded that going forward, it will be cheaper and less risky for them to raise new money with bonds, rather than stocks. This is not a sign that they're in trouble, rather a move to hedge against a sharp decline in the overall stock market.

  8. It's about the issuance of high-quality debt by matthaak · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Consider this move in the context of the financial system meltdown, with US Treasury bonds at 40 & 50-year lows.

    The *officially stated* purpose of this action is boosting MS share values. But they are almost completely going to deplete their entire cash reserve to buy back shares. From now on, they'll use debt -- bonds -- to finance expansion and development.

    They're bond rating is "AAA", which only 5 or 6 other companies and the government have.

    What's interesting is that with lending seized-up around the world, we know that money creation is basically halted. So, I wonder if there wasn't a little pressure on Microsoft to convert to a debt-financed operation & flood the market with new, high-quality debt, thus creating new money.

  9. Re:Why do companies do this? by OldManAndTheC++ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Listen to the words of the oracle of Omaha, Warren Buffett, from the Berkshire-Hathaway 2005 Annual report:

    Too often, executive compensation in the U.S. is ridiculously out of line with performance. That
    won't change, moreover, because the deck is stacked against investors when it comes to the CEO's pay.
    The upshot is that a mediocre-or-worse CEO - aided by his handpicked VP of human relations and a
    consultant from the ever-accommodating firm of Ratchet, Ratchet and Bingo - all too often receives gobs
    of money from an ill-designed compensation arrangement.

    Take, for instance, ten year, fixed-price options (and who wouldn't?). If Fred Futile, CEO of
    Stagnant, Inc., receives a bundle of these - let's say enough to give him an option on 1% of the company -
    his self-interest is clear: He should skip dividends entirely and instead use all of the company's earnings to
    repurchase stock.

    Let's assume that under Fred's leadership Stagnant lives up to its name. In each of the ten years
    after the option grant, it earns $1 billion on $10 billion of net worth, which initially comes to $10 per share
    on the 100 million shares then outstanding. Fred eschews dividends and regularly uses all earnings to
    repurchase shares. If the stock constantly sells at ten times earnings per share, it will have appreciated
    158% by the end of the option period. That's because repurchases would reduce the number of shares to
    38.7 million by that time, and earnings per share would thereby increase to $25.80. Simply by withholding
    earnings from owners, Fred gets very rich, making a cool $158 million, despite the business itself
    improving not at all. Astonishingly, Fred could have made more than $100 million if Stagnant's earnings
    had declined by 20% during the ten-year period.

    Fred can also get a splendid result for himself by paying no dividends and deploying the earnings
    he withholds from shareholders into a variety of disappointing projects and acquisitions. Even if these
    initiatives deliver a paltry 5% return, Fred will still make a bundle. Specifically - with Stagnant's p/e ratio
    remaining unchanged at ten - Fred's option will deliver him $63 million. Meanwhile, his shareholders will
    wonder what happened to the "alignment of interests" that was supposed to occur when Fred was issued
    options.

    A "normal" dividend policy, of course - one-third of earnings paid out, for example - produces
    less extreme results but still can provide lush rewards for managers who achieve nothing.
    CEOs understand this math and know that every dime paid out in dividends reduces the value of
    all outstanding options. I've never, however, seen this manager-owner conflict referenced in proxy
    materials that request approval of a fixed-priced option plan. Though CEOs invariably preach internally
    that capital comes at a cost, they somehow forget to tell shareholders that fixed-price options give them
    capital that is free.

    It doesn't have to be this way: It's child's play for a board to design options that give effect to the
    automatic build-up in value that occurs when earnings are retained. But - surprise, surprise - options of
    that kind are almost never issued. Indeed, the very thought of options with strike prices that are adjusted
    for retained earnings seems foreign to compensation "experts," who are nevertheless encyclopedic about
    every management-friendly plan that exists. ("Whose bread I eat, his song I sing.")

    Getting fired can produce a particularly bountiful payday for a CEO. Indeed, he can "earn" more
    in that single day, while cleaning out his desk, than an American worker earns in a lifetime of cleaning
    toilets. Forget the old maxim about nothing succeeding like success: Today, in the executive suite, the alltoo-
    prevalent rule is that nothing succeeds like failure.

    --
    Soylent Green is peoplicious!
  10. Sign of a Dying Company by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Once I read an insightful article that pointed out how a stock buyback is the sign of a dying company.

    Why would it be that, you ask?

    Because a company who can't find a better place to invest their cash in expanding themselves into new areas (as opposed to merely buying back their stock) clearly has no vision or wish to be anything more than they already are.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:Sign of a Dying Company by dave562 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When a company owns, what... 80%+ of the desktop computer market, the lack of desire to be "anything more" might not exactly be considered failure.

  11. Re:Vista Sales by jollyreaper · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Vista has been such a tremendous flop"

    Do you have any idea what an idiot making such an inane assertion makes you look like?

    The smart and observant kind of idiot?

    By any reasonable measure, Vista has been a tremendous flop. Just look at the kind of marketing money Microsoft is having to spend to convince people it isn't.

    1. Requires insanely beefy hardware while offering the average user little more functionality than XP
    2. Launched prematurely, too many bugs to count
    3. Lies and falsehoods about hardware requirements, too many machines sold as "vista capable" that obviously weren't.
    4. First service pack in development before the OS even shipped.
    5. Microsoft forced to unveil Windows 7 years early to convince people that better is coming.
    6. The name Vista is such poison that Microsoft had to base an entire ad campaign around the whole Mojave thing, getting people to try the OS without the Vista name because they knew just hearing "Vista" puts a bad taste in the consumer's mouth.

    Vista represents what, six years of development, $12 billion? And all that additional DRM crap is thrown in to reduce your system's performance.

    By any rational, unbiased inspection of the facts, Vista is a colossal failure.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  12. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion