But stock buybacks shouldn't be price-neutral by default? The entire point is to increase the unit price of the remaining shares.
And in this specific case, selling shares to Berkshire at a 5% discount has a pretty clear signalling effect.
But stock buybacks shouldn't be price-neutral by default? The entire point is to increase the unit price of the remaining shares.
And in this specific case, selling shares to Berkshire at a 5% discount has a pretty clear signalling effect.
In theory a buyback is price neutral.
The company has less cash in the balance sheet, so its market cap decreases. But there are fewer shares, so the share price is the same.
(This allows hypothetical future growth to disproportionately benefit existing shareholders, but does not intrinsically increase stock price.)
In practice, like another poster pointed out, it signals the company’s belief that its own shares are undervalued, so the market usually increases its estimation of value.
(intrinsic) value neutral not price.
price is more broad and brings in supply vs demand effects.
In theory a dividend is also price neutral. You have the dividend now but the company you owned doesn't any more.
However, if someone gives you a dividend you typically have to pay tax, and lots of people really hate paying tax.
So buybacks are the preferred price neutral way of dealing with excess cash.
The dividend amount plus share price is neutral.
But before-paying-dividend versus after-paying-dividend decreases the value of a share.