Yes it is to boost share price which in most cases helps the CEO with options. So the tradeoff on which one is better is how much per share the dividend is compared to the increase in stock price resulting from the buy backs. I'm not sure which studies have shown to be a bigger payoff though...
My argument is that there isn't an actual outcome distinction, only a morality distinction. We think it's bad to discriminate against one group but it's okay to discriminate other groups that aren't protected.
There is multiple stores I can't go to because of their religious beliefs and not opening on Sunday. Should Chick filet be forced to be open on Sunday so I can get a chicken sandwhich when I want? The end result is the same, if one store doesn't have what I want, I go to another store. There...
I disagree. I believe that him pulling a gun in their mind was what gave them the 99% for him. If they didn't believe he had a gun it would be 99% the other way.
In florida you can't be drunk and discharging your weapon or are ready to discharge your weapon
https://blog.uslawshield.com/more-about-guns-and-alcohol-in-florida/
Shouldn't the opposite be true, the people who say people should have free speech independent of their employer be complaining about how ABC shouldn't be canceling her show?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.