"capital spending vs. buybacks"

another sign that something isn´t sustainable. when you now add to this that lots of buybacks are debt fueled and the insiders are selling at a record pace .....http://immobilienblasen.blogspot.com/2006/12/insider-stock-sales-highest-since-1987.html .

ein weiterer hinweis das irgendetwas nicht stimmig ist. wenn man jetzt noch bedenkt das ein großer teil kreditfinanziert ist und insider auf rekordlever ihre aktien vertickern.......

but it is god to know that not every buyback (even a $13.3 billion) isn´t helping every time to hide poor management and performance. http://immobilienblasen.blogspot.com/2006/11/home-depot-net-income-falls-first-time.html

es ist aber schön zu sehen das nicht jeder rückkauf (selbst über 13 mrd$) schwaches management überdecken kann.


companies that are awash with cash are putting a lot of that money into dividends and even more into stock buybacks, at least among S.& P. 500 companies, reports Howard Silverblatt, an analyst with Standard & Poor’s.

He estimates that those 500 companies spent $425 billion on capital in 2006, up 3 percent from the prior year, and spent $437 billion on stock buybacks, up 25 percent.


It was the first year ever that more money was spent on buybacks than capital spending. Dividends climbed 11 percent, to $224 billion.