I'm not going to see their ad anyway, and if I did and knew it was targeted, I'd be more likely to find somewhere else to shop. What did we have before targeting existed?
- I thought unobtrusive keyword-based ads in Google searches were okay, when they didn't fill the results page.
- I think context-sensitive ads are fantastic. People reading a boat-building site see ads for boat-building or other related products/services. I would click on these ads.
- Word of mouth, vetted reviews, brand loyalty...all valid, rights-preserving approaches.
Since the lore is that targeting gets higher click-through rates, maybe small businesses could pay a little less for the less skeezy alternatives. Targeted advertising is forever linked in my mind to Zuckerberg's "dumb fucks" email. Facebook/Meta is the biggest offender in this space, and I'm happy to watch it die in a fire.
Literally none of your solutions work for small businesses, as they cannot win the auctions for limited adspace in a world where targeting doesn't exist, and word of mouth only really works for an extremely tiny fraction of small businesses.
Your solution would decimate the millions of small businesses that rely on targeted advertising to get consumers.
Small businesses don't win many advertising auctions anyway. Big brands win, or cheap knockoff brands on Amazon, or Amazon itself (not a small business).
I don't think it's about tax advantages but flexibility for the conpany. RSUs usually vest over several years. If times get tough you can slow/stop buybacks. Eventually that would have an effect on the price from dilution but it'd be slow. You can't just not pay out cash awards that have already been scheduled (unless you opt for layoffs, but that's a big hammer).
Meta share count is only down 6% total since the start of the pandemic. And down ~10% total since their share count peak in 2017
Looks like you're referencing YoY rates as measured on a quarterly basis from the link above, which is not the same as the absolute percentage of shares.
Likely the pace will rise somewhat with recent job cuts/buybacks, but historically they've mostly just tread water with shares issued via software based comp
As of December 31, 2020, there were 2,406 million shares of Class A common stock and 443 million shares of Class B common stock issued and outstanding.
As of December 31, 2021, there were 2,328 million shares of Class A common stock and 413 million shares of Class B common stock issued and outstanding.
2021: 2849 -> 2741
We don't have the end of year figures yet but from the Q3 report:
2,248,672,204 shares outstanding as of October 21, 2022
402,876,470 shares outstanding as of October 21, 2022
Class A shares [...] 2,262 million [...] outstanding, as of September 30, 2022
Class B shares [...] 403 million [...] outstanding, as of September 30, 2022
and from yesterday's earnings release:
Weighted-average shares used to compute earnings per share attributable to Class A and Class B common stockholders (Three Months Ended December 31, 2022): Basic 2,638
While we wait for the filing we can take a guess:
Sep 30: 2665
Oct 21: 2652
Q4 average: 2638
Dec 31: ~2615 ?
> As of December 31, 2022, there were 2,247 million shares of Class A common stock and 367 million shares of Class B common stock issued and outstanding.
2614. Not bad!
8.2% fewer outstanding shares than two years ago. If that’s “mostly flat” so be it.
You said there way no way to predict they could buy back so much.
But basing your expectations on 2021 would have done exactly that. So that argument is wrong.
If your real/amended argument is "no way to predict the level", as in predicting the exact amount, that's a much weaker argument that has barely any ramifications for investing. The specific amount is generally much less important than going over/under some threshold.
If it was so obvious large quantities of the stock would’ve been purchased even if the price was depressed. Were there any notable investors purchasing large quantities in expectation of this?
Predicting it only took very simple and reasonable logic. "I bet the number stays the same."
A sports analogy: There's a game tomorrow where one team has 30% odds of winning. If someone bets on that team, nobody says "no one could have predicted that". It's obvious that it could happen, and it's plausible that it could happen. Tons of people predicted it.
And large quantities of the stock were purchased. There's tons of trading happening every day.
It's not like the people that expected a large buyback were acting in a vacuum. Stock value follows the average. To push the sports analogy, the team stock would still be going down even though many people are betting on them.
They barely bought more than last Q (500M more) and 3 times less than Q4-21. Nothing extraordinary with this buyback, they even have a few B authorized remaining.
The only surprise with the buyback streak since last year is how poorly executed it was. They dumped $45B ahead of anouncing a decrease in DAU, then trickled after it tanked the stock.
They doubled as the UK is part of the wider market, so subject to market forces due to the way it is structured... In this situation, green energy producers are also getting a significant boost as their energy is very low marginal cost of production and commands the same rate as fossil fuels. Hopefully that is at least some silver lining... Maybe we could tax the fossil fuel companies and support the UK taxpayers rather than laying down more debt in the form of taxpayer loans.
What I learned here is that there are a lot of people in HN that think the airlines have some sort of ultimate rights. That isn't true, and they are ignorant of the facts... Who knew HN was full of airline shills!
Your link is literally a very large list which argues against you entirely:
> The business practice of bumping is not illegal. Airlines oversell their scheduled flights to a certain extent in order to compensate for “no-shows.” Most of the time, airlines correctly predict the “no shows” and everything goes smoothly. But sometimes, passengers are bumped as a result of oversales practices.
...
> it is legal for airlines to involuntarily bump passengers from an oversold flight when there are not enough volunteers
> If there are not enough passengers who are willing to give up their seats voluntarily, an airline may deny you a seat on an aircraft based on criteria that it establishes
Not to mention:
> Other Reasons You May Be Removed From a Flight
...
* Attempting to interfere with the duties of a flight crew member.
* Disrupting flight operations or engaging in unruly behavior.
As well as: FAA regulations state that “no person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember’s duties aboard an aircraft being operated.”
He didn't interfere or disrupt the flight operations through unruly behaviour. He didn't assault, threaten, intimidate or interfere with anyone. This was all on video...United were in the wrong.
That is why they settled the suit - and why the rules were changed!
It amazes me that people think this is ok - and that David Dao was somehow in the wrong here.
The issue of police brutality - how he was treated - is separate to whether United were within their rights to bump him off the flight. And the answer is...yes, in every possible way, they were.
And since they were, once he's asked to leave and doesn't he's now in the process of disrupting flight operations and interfering with a staff members duties by not leaving.
Very politely refusing to leave private property when asked to is very politely committing trespassing and that situation always escalates to involving the police.
Who, in the performance of their duties, should not use excessive force or cause physical injury but again - this is a separate matter to whether they have the authority to remove an uncooperative passenger, which as your link asserts repeatedly - they do.
> "On January 13, 2021, the United States Department of Transportation amended its rules, forbidding involuntarily bumping from an overbooked flight after boarding starting on April 21."
