At the employee Q1 review, I noticed Fluffy used the argument "It would be easy for the stock to go up by buying back shares but who would be the one person most likely to gain from that?" I heard the identical argument almost word for word from another executive about a week earlier.
Seems this is the latest attempt to try to get employees to think the Stank is the right person to be in charge.
Stop hating on the man because he makes a lot of money.
He didn’t “earn” anything.
Using debt to manipulate the stock price sounds like a good idea.
Lol the only reason they slowed down on stock buybacks is that interest rates are too high to do it with debt and get away with it. Also no one is looking to loan us any more money to pump up the stock price artificially. Trying to spin it as "We stopped doing it for YOU!" is a total crock.
“What's the point he's trying to make?”
I think they’re trying to say that if they just wanted to raise the stock price they could just do stock buy-backs but instead they’re putting the money towards lowering debt and developing new revenue streams or fleshing out current revenue streams but in reality they’re just broke and don’t have the money to dedicate to stock buy backs when there’s so much debt due to management misadventure.
I don't understand this at all, they could buy back stock to increase the price, but Stankey(?) would be the one to benefit the most from it so they won't do it?
What's the point he's trying to make?
I thought that was odd, and I am not surprised to hear now that he lifted it from someone else. That's kind of his thing with policy too.
Re: the argument that "...see, I'm not greedy, I'm not enriching myself further through buybacks..."
The man earned $26.5 million last year. I think he's doing quite alright.