That doesn't make any sense; as a strategy it has no real purpose and as a method it would be disastrous. You might buy back shares for strategic purposes, like control, but primarily it would be because you expected their value to rise, and the expected value increase outweighed the borrowing costs. So just like any leveraged transaction (e.g. spread betting), but on your own company.
You're looking at it as if it were a simple supply and demand fruit market style model for tangible physical commodity. It's not. I don't want to try and explain the global economy in a post, not least because I'm clueless, but for a start it's inherently a large part sentiment and expectation, otherwise you would never buy anything other than a stake that gave you meaningful executive control over some entity. Then there's the complex relationship between market value and survivability; e.g. you may well need interest in your share to fund raise otherwise you run out of working capital and it all starts to unravel. Throw leverage and debt into that, as well as international economic relationships, and it's a frightening nightmare.
Who'd have thought the the reaction to One Direction splitting would be THIS extreme.
has been called that by Chinese Officals, so technically yes
So possibly granny, eggs, etc, but the FTSE100 is an index of Britain's 100 biggest companies, and as a rule of thumb, big equals old, established and conservative, so volatility is unusual. It has since recovered a little, as have most economies, but the question is what the trend is going to be in the next days and weeks. It could be a bump or we could be going back to 2008 - or a bit of both.FTSE 100 (^FTSE)
-FTSE
5,849.13338.52(5.47%) 14:58
I dont know much about stocks but thats a lot isnt it?
I wish I had your unbridled optimism. I think most market participants quietly viewed the chairless as the systemic weakness and the music stopping as the correction to eliminate them.
No, definitely optimism. It implies that someone knew what they were doing and had an understanding of the risk exposure, or even that they can learn lessons from it. It seems to me more likely that pretty much all involved were, and are, very stupid.
The FTSE 100 has changed a lot.
Yes, but this isn't contradictory to them being boring & conservative, assuming that's the point. What you don't see is a FTSE constituent suddenly go, hurray, we've found oil, and their price go up 100x like a small cap explorer. Things happen slowly and gradually and with limited volatility. Large scale M&A is no exception.
