vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
I believe that article provides some good reasons, though it may be a bit light on technical details and there are likely other reasons a company would do it. So, if they can finance for less then they would lose to taxes by bringing the money home and they do not take on too much debt, this will likely work just fine and increase share holder value. Hopefully, someone else can provide some other reasonable scenarios. The bottom line is that it does not matter how they finance the share buybacks and/or dividend payments as long as they do not shoot themselves in the foot while doing it.
I'm not a finance guy by trade, I'm an accountant, so I'm not 100% sure, but I'm going to say no.   EBITDA is your accounting profit before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. So it's already free of many non-cash items, and is closer to a cash-basis measure of profit, but still includes many non-cash revenues.   As far as I know, the discounting is to take the time value of money into account so you can make a decision on whether the present value of the expected future cash flows are greater than the present value of the cash outflow being asked today. If it is, then you buy. If not, then you don't.
As with most strategies there are pros and cons associated with this approach: Advantages of using LEAPS: Disadvantages of using LEAPS: Read more about it in great detail on my blog: http://www.thebluecollarinvestor.com/leaps-and-covered-call-writing-2/
A stock buy back reduces the number of stocks available on the open market.  Since stocks are literally a share in ownership a buy back of the stock then when the company repurchases it has the effect of increasing the percent of ownership of the company of each stock. Zynga has a Market Cap of ~1810M so a 200M buy back will increase the ownership value of each stock by ~12%.  This has had the effect of an immediate stock price bump of around 12% which is to be expected as the value becomes the expected post buyback value. However long term gains will require Zynga to turn around their business.  This bump will only be sustainable if they can.  If their business continues to decline then its stock price will continue to slide.  There are some who would rather see Zynga invest that 200m in getting a new product to market to bring revenues up rather than spending precious capital on a plan to temporarily bump a stock that is headed towards the floor.  If on the other hand the revenue is poised to recover and the company has the excess capitol buying back stock low is a great way to get the most back for your shareholders bucks. Can they repurchase at any price and any time? They can write a buy order for any price at any time in the future, though they have some restrictions from the SEC mostly involving disclosures.  But it is up to the sellers to choose to sell at that price.  If they execute the buy back at a rate comparable to market rate then they are more likely to get takers than if they attempt to buy it back at a significant reduction from market price.  So since today(10-25-2012) the it is selling for ~2.30  A buy order for 2.30 is going to get more action than one at 2.00.  Investors will often look at the companies buy back offer for a company in decline(like Zynga has been) as the true value of the company.  If so then a lowball buyback offer could add downward pressure on the stock price.
Yes When exercising a stock option you will be buying the stock at the strike price so you will be putting up your money, if you lose that money you can declare it as a loss like any other transaction. So if the stock is worth $1 and you have 10 options with a strike at $0.50 you will spend $500 when you exercise your options. If you hold those shares and the company is then worth $0 you lost $500. I have not verified my answer so this is solely from my understanding of accounting and finance. Please verify with your accountant to be sure.
It definitely depends on your risk appetite as Joe Taxpayer pointed out in his answer. Covered calls are a good choice for someone who already own's the stock, because the premium collected reduces the cost basis for the position. The downside is that if the calls are exercised, there is a good chance that you are missing out on additional upside in the stock price (because the strike is obviously below the market value for the stocks).  Another good option trade is the spread option. This would allow you to capture the difference between the two strikes of the options in the spread. This is also one of the less risky choices because your initial cost an potential profit/loss are known in advance of entering the position.
Not directly Nintendo, but: A company would want its share price to be high if it wants to sell its stock, e.g. on IPO or on subsequent offerings. However, if they want to buy back some shares, it would be in their interest to get more stock for the buck. There may of course be derivative values associated with a high share price, e.g. if they bet on the price or have agreements with investors for particular milestones to be reached. Employees might hold shares and be motivated by share price increases, so a decrease may not be desired, unless they are into some kind of insider trading (buy low, sell high). And last, over-valued share prices may undermine trust in a company, and failing to inform shareholders sufficiently may be outright illegal. Besides those reasons related to law, funding, sales, public relations and company image, companies should be pretty much independent from their own share prices, in contrast to share distribution.
Pro:  - Faces less redemption pressure and hence the Fund Manager can focus more on long term gains rather than immediate gains.  - Works well in emerging markets.  - Less churn out in case the market falls sharply, there by making more money in long run. Cons:  - No additional money to invest/take advantage of market situation.  - Less liquid for investor as he is locked in for a period.
If you get somewhat of a discount appraisal you're probably not going to save much money, and given the (probable) size of your investment you might as well pay the extra money.  You'll learn something about the market or investment anyway.  Maybe it will open you up to some new ideas like trying to flip the property or pulling out some equity to go after more properties.
"The answer is partly and sometimes, but you cannot know when or how. Most clearly, you do not take somebody else's money if you buy shares in a start-up company. You are putting your money at risk in exchange for a share in the rewards. Later, if the company thrives, you can sell your shares for whatever somebody else will pay for your current share in the thriving company's earnings. Or, you lose your money, when the company fails. (Much of it has then ended up in the company's employees' pockets, much of the rest with the government as taxes that the company paid). If the stockmarket did not exist, people would be far less willing to put their money into a new company, because selling shares would be far harder. This in turn would mean that fewer new things were tried out, and less progress would be made. Communists insist that central state planning would make better decisions than random people linked by a market. I suggest that the historical record proves otherwise. Historically, limited liability companies came first, then dividing them up into larger numbers of ""bearer"" shares, and finally creating markets where such shares were traded. On the other hand if you trade in the short or medium term, you are betting that your opinion that XYZ shares are undervalued against other investors who think otherwise. But there again, you may be buying from a person who has some other reason for selling. Maybe he just needs some cash for a new car or his child's marriage, and will buy back into XYZ once he has earned some more money. You can't tell who you are buying from, and the seller can only tell if his decision to sell was good with the benefit of a good few years of hindsight. I bought shares hand over fist immediately after the Brexit vote. I was putting my money where my vote went, and I've now made a decent profit. I don't feel that I harmed the people who sold out in expectation of the UK economy cratering. They got the peace of mind of cash (which they might then reinvest in Euro stocks or gold or whatever).
Some other answers mention the ability to sell at grant. This is very important. If you have that ability, think about your guaranteed return. In my case, I get a 15% discount on the lowest 6 month window price from the last two years.  If you do the math, the worst case return can be calculated: 1) Money that from the beginning of the window, I make 15% for 6 months (30% annual return guaranteed) 2) Money at the end of the window (say the last month) is 15% for one month (180% annual return guaranteed) In the end, your average holding window for your money is about 3 months (you can calculate it exactly). At that rate, you have a guaranteed 60% annual return. You can't beat that anywhere, with a significant upside if your company stock is increasing. So, if your company has an instant sell at grant option, you have to be brain dead not to do it. If it takes time to get your shares, then you need to look at the volatility of the stock to see how big the chance of losing money is. To generalize to a formula (if that's what you want): WM = purchase window (in months); D = Discount Percentage; GR = Guaranteed Return GR = 12/(WM/2) * D = 6*D/WM One last thing, If you are going to participate in ESPP, make you that you understand how to do your taxes yourself. I haven't found a tax person yet who does ESPP correctly (including an ex IRS agent), so I always have to do my taxes myself to make sure they get done correctly.
"Check how long you have to hold the stock after buying it. If you can sell reasonably soon and your company is reasonably stable, you're unlikely to lose and/or be taxed and/or pay enough in fees to lose more than the 30% ""free money"" they're giving you.  Whether you hold it longer than the minimum time depends partly on whether you think you can better invest the money elsewhere, and partly on how you feel about having both your salary and (part of) your investments tied to the company's success? The company would like you to ""double down"" that way, in the theory that it may make you mors motivated... but some investment councelors would advise keeping that a relatively small part of your total investments, basically for the same reasons you are always advised to diversify."
A cautionary tale:  About 25 years ago I decided that I should try my hand at investing in some technology companies.   I was in the computer biz but decided that I might suffer from myopia there, so I researched some medical startups.  And I did some reasonably good research, given the available resources (the Internet was quite primitive).  I narrowed things down to 4-5 companies, studying their technology plans, then researched their business plans and their personnel. In the end I picked a drug company.  Not only did it have a promising business plan, but it had as it's CEO a hotshot from some other company, and the BOD was populated buy big names from tech companies and the like.  AND the company had like $2 of cash for every $1 of outstanding share value, following their recent IPO. So I sold a bit of stock I had in my employer and bought like $3000 worth of this company. Then, taking the advice I'd seen several places, I forgot about it for about 6 months. When I went back to look their stock value had dropped a little, and the cash reserves were down about 20%.  I wasn't too worried.  6 months later the cash was down 50%.  Worrying a little.  After I'd had the stock for about 2 years the stock price was about 10% of what I'd paid.  Hardly worth selling, so I hung on for awhile longer. The company was eventually sold to some other company and I got maybe $50 in stock in the new company.
I don't know what restrictions are put on the average employee at your company. In my case, we were told we were not permitted to either short the stock, or to trade in it options.  That said, I was successful shorting the exact number of shares I'd be buying at the 6 month close, the same day the purchase price would be set. I then requested transfer of the stock purchase to my broker where the long and short netted to zero.  The return isn't 15%, it's  100/85 or 17.6% for an average 3 months they have your money. So do the math on APR. (Higher if the stock has risen over 6 months and you get the lower price from 6 months prior.) My method was riskless, as far as I am concerned. I did this a dozen times. The stock itself was +/- 4% by the time the shares hit, so in the end it was an effort, mostly to sleep better. I agree with posts suggesting the non-zero risk of a 20% 4 day drop.
When the deal closes, will it be as if I sold all of my ESPP shares   with regards to taxes? Probably. If the deal is for cash and not stock exchange, then once the deal is approved and closed all the existing shareholders will sell their shares to the buyer for cash. Is there any way to mitigate this? Unlikely. You need to understand that ESPP is just a specific way to purchase shares, it doesn't give you any special rights or protections that other shareholders don't have.
Absolutely. In fact, all stock purchases of more than 5% of a company's stock must be reported to the SEC, so assuming A and B are publicly traded companies in the US, the purchase would likely be a matter of public record.  There are probably special cases where this could cause problems, however; any case where A's purchase of B's stock (or vice versa) runs afoul of regulation would be one such case. For example, if company A wants to own a controlling interest in company B and appoint members of its board of directors and both companies were in the same heavily-concentrated market, regulators may frown on the potential for decreased competition. Such regulations may apply to any purchase of a controlling interest in a company, though.
The stock market is just like any other market, but stocks are bought and sold here. Just like you buy and sell your electronics at the electronics market, this is a place where buyers and sellers come together to buy and sell shares or stocks or equity, no matter what you call it. What are these shares? A share is nothing but a portion of ownership of a company. Suppose a company has 100 shares issued to it, and you were sold 10 out of those, it literally means you are a 10% owner of the company. Why do companies sell shares? Companies sell shares to grow or expand. Suppose a business is manufacturing or producing and selling goods or services that are high in demand, the owners would want to take advantage of it and increase the production of his goods or services. And in order to increase production he would need money to buy land or equipment or labor, etc. Now either he could go get a loan by pledging something, or he could partner with someone who could give him money in exchange for some portion of the ownership of the company. This way, the owner gets the money to expand his business and make more profit, and the lender gets a portion of profit every time the company makes some. Now if the owner decides to sell shares rather than getting a loan, that's when the stock market comes into the picture. Why would a person want to trade stocks? First of all, please remember that stocks were never meant to be traded. You always invest in stocks. What's the difference? Trading is short term and investing is long term, in very simple language. It's the greed of humans which led to this concept of trading stocks. A person should only buy stocks if he believes in the business the company is doing and sees the potential of growth. Back to the question: a person would want to buy stocks of the company because: How does a stock market help society? Look around you for the answer to this question. Let me give you a start and I wish everyone reading this post to add at least one point to the answer. Corporations in general allow many people come together and invest in a business without fear that their investment will cause them undue liability - because shareholders are ultimately not liable for the actions of a corporation.
A 15% discount is a 17.6% return. (100/85 = 1.176). For a holding period that's an average 15.5 days, a half month. It would be silly to compound this over a year as the numbers are limited.  The safest way to do this is to sell the day you are permitted. In effect, you are betting, 12 times a year, that the stock won't drop 15% in 3 days. You can pull data going back decades, or as long as your company has been public, and run a spreadsheet to see how many times, if at all, the stock has seen this kind of volatility over 3 day periods. Even for volatile stocks, a 15% move is pretty large, you're likely to find your stock doing this less than once per year. It's also safest to not accumulate too many shares of your company for multiple reasons, having to do with risk spreading, diversification, etc.  2 additional points -  the Brexit just caused the S&P to drop 4% over the last 3 days trading. This was a major world event, but, on average we are down 4%. One would have to be very unlucky to have their stock drop 15% over the specific 3 days we are discussing.  The dollars at risk are minimal. Say you make $120K/yr. $10K/month. 15% of this is $1500 and you are buying $1765 worth of stock. The gains, on average are expected to be $265/mo. Doesn't seem like too much, but it's $3180 over a years' time. $3180 in profit for a maximum $1500 at risk at any month's cycle.
Since you seem determined to consider this, I'd like to break down for you why I believe it is an incredibly risky proposition: 1) In general, picking individual stocks is risky. Individual stocks are by their nature not diversified assets, and a single company-wide calamity (a la Volkswagen emissions, etc.) can create huge distress to your investments. The way to mitigate this risk is of course to diversify (invest in other types of assets, such as other stocks, index funds, bonds, etc.). However, you must accept that this first step does have risks. 2) Picking stocks on the basis of financial information (called 'fundamental analysis') requires a very large amount of research and time dedication. It is one of the two main schools of thought in equity investing (as opposed to 'technical analysis', which pulls information directly from stock markets, such as price volatility). This is something that professional investors do for a living - and that means that they have an edge you do not have, unless you dedicate similar resources to this task. That information imbalance between you and professional traders creates additional risk where you make determinations 'against the grain'. 3) Any specific piece of public information (and this is public information, regardless of how esoteric it is) may be considered to be already 'factored into' public stock prices. I am a believer in market efficiency first and foremost. That means I believe that anything publically known related to a corporation ['OPEC just lowered their oil production! Exxon will be able to increase their prices!'] has already been considered by the professional traders currently buying and selling in the market. For your 'new' information to be valuable, it would need to have the ability to forecast earnings in a way not already considered by others. 4) I doubt you will be able to find the true nature of the commercial impact of a particular event, simply by knowing ship locations. So what if you know Alcoa is shipping Aluminium to Cuba - is this one of 5 shipments already known to the public? Is this replacement supplies that are covering a loss due to damaged goods previously sent? Is the boat only 1/3 full? Where this information gets valuable, is when it gets to the level of corporate espionage.
First, the stock does represent a share of ownership and if you have a different interpretation I'd like to see proof of that. Secondly, when the IPO or secondary offering happened that put those shares into the market int he first place, the company did receive proceeds from selling those shares. While others may profit afterward, it is worth noting that more than a few companies will have secondary offerings, convertible debt, incentive stock options and restricted stock that may be used down the road that are all dependent upon the current trading share price in terms of how useful these can be used to fund operations, pay executives and so forth. Third, if someone buys up enough shares of the company then they gain control of the company which while you aren't mentioning this case, it is something to note as some individuals buy stock so that they can take over the company which happens. Usually this has more of an overall plan but the idea here is that getting that 50%+1 control of the company's voting shares are an important piece to things here.
When you buy a stock, you become a partial owner of the company that the stock is for. As the company is valued at a higher or lower amount, the stock will reflect that by gaining or losing value. You still own that stock. For example, if you bought a stock for $10 per share and next week it is worth $8 dollars per share, the only loss incurred is on paper. You do not have to pay the difference (which I think is what you are asking?) and will only physically lose that money if you sell at that point. Similarly if that stock becomes worth $12, you have only gained money on paper and can only physically see it if you sell at that point.
You'll need to talk to your broker about registering positions you already hold.  I would personally expect this will cost you a not-insignificant fee.  And I don't think you'll be able to do this on any shares held in a tax-advantaged account. That said, I'd recommend you go to the Investors sections of the company's website in question.  This will usually tell you who the registrar of the company's stock is, and if they offer any direct-purchase, or DRIP, programs.   You should find out from these contacts and program details how the direct program works and what it's costs are. I suspect, but have no firsthand knowledge that this will be true, that you'll end up with lower costs if you just sell the shares in your brokerage, take the cash out, send the cash to the registrar and re-purchase shares that way.   I say this only because I know, from inheritance situations, that de-registering stock cost me a $75 fee at my brokerage, whereas transactions at the registrar were $19.95. My answers to your direct questions: (Edited to fully answer the question with itemized answers.)
Every company has Stocks.   For the stocks to be traded via some stock exchange, the companies must follow the eligibility criteria and guidelines. Once done, these are then listed on the stock exchange and can be traded. The advantage [amongst others] of listing is liquidity and stocks can easily be bought and sold.  Some small companies or closely held companies may not want to list on stock exchange and hence are not traded. This does not mean they can't be bought and sold, they can be outside of the market, however the deals are complex and every deal has to be worked out. During the course of time a stock that is traded on a stock exchange, would either fail to meet the criteria or voluntarily choose not to be traded and follow the delisting process [either by stock exchange or by company]. After this the stocks are no longer traded on the exchange.
the implications are that the company's earnings per share may seem greater, (after the company buys them there will be less shares outstanding), giving wall street the impression that there is more growth potential than there really is. its an accounting gimmick that can work for a few quarters while the company evaluates how else to impress wall street