3M, which I own, increased their dividend and increased the buyback pool from $7B to $7.5B. The differences with their buyback are that 1) they're buying back at highs and 2) they have a cash hoard and 3) it is clearly beneficial to shareholders as it more than offsets employee-awarded stock options instead of giving the appearance of an insider parachute program.
1) It is always more beneficial in the long run to do a buyback at the lowest possible valuations.
2) If a financed buyback is strongly accretive, it is still very much worth it.
3) How on earth can purchasing share at less than a 7 P/E be considered some kind of parachute.
But then again, you don't believe in numbers and fundamentals and reality. Back to your land of make believe.
Your killing me OP! MMM was one of my biggest holdings... Bought in at 80... Being a Minnesota boy growing up there "ya betcha eh"... Great company... As goes MMM goes the Dow... Bell weather stock. Solid.
They also have a large amount of debt. One could take the position that they are doing it to increase management's pockets. Regardless, I still like companies making the decision to buy back stock even if they borrow. It's management believing in their company and giving value to its shareholders..
Yeah, but you have to admit it was really bad timing to have the founder and his trust divest 579,000 shares so close to the buyout filing. Those were the bulk of the recent insider sales and correct me if I'm wrong, but they were NOT automatic sales. So, it's either another example of the inability of this management to manage the stock or he's getting out while the gettin is good.