> Taking on debt to finance buybacks, however, is bad management, given that no revenue-generating investments are made that can allow the company to pay off the debt.
This seems to be the crux of the article, and it appears to be completely unsubstantiated.
First of all, this article isn't about just stock buybacks -- the argument of the article applies broadly to dividends just as much, save for minor details.
The point the article is making is that profits ought to be reinvested rather than paid out. But obviously mature firms often can't find ways to reliably re-invest. They don't need to grow any further, nor should they. So investors want them not to re-invest, and throw off dividends or buybacks instead. This way investors can fund the next generation of companies.
And taking on debt to do it isn't inherently irresponsible. In fact, it's just a wise financial decision when interest rates are low. New revenue streams aren't required to be generated -- it's just shifting a subset of future revenue to the present.
This seems to be the crux of the article, and it appears to be completely unsubstantiated.
First of all, this article isn't about just stock buybacks -- the argument of the article applies broadly to dividends just as much, save for minor details.
The point the article is making is that profits ought to be reinvested rather than paid out. But obviously mature firms often can't find ways to reliably re-invest. They don't need to grow any further, nor should they. So investors want them not to re-invest, and throw off dividends or buybacks instead. This way investors can fund the next generation of companies.
And taking on debt to do it isn't inherently irresponsible. In fact, it's just a wise financial decision when interest rates are low. New revenue streams aren't required to be generated -- it's just shifting a subset of future revenue to the present.
So I really don't get this article at all.