Use it or Lose it

Increase in EPS generally boosts share price regardless of whether it came about via share buyback or some other means. More than lack of knowledge or clever sales pitch, this fact could could explain why most shareholders choose the "do nothing" option and let company managements push through motions for share buybacks. 

Thanks for the comment. It appears that investors need far more educating by the company and the FS industry on what are their rights. The current situation should not be allowed to persist in a democratic society where corporate can be brought under more control if only investors would

I agree that more investor education will help. However, the key questions are:

1. How many investors have the time and inclination to undergo such education, especially when many of them - including me! - don't even bother to spare the time to read shareholder announcements or submit proxy votes, let alone attend AGMs in person?
2. Is the company, or even the FS industry, the right entity to impart such education? Regulators might fit the role better. 

Personally, I believe that investors - including institutional shareholders - should let the company's executives do what's best for customers, employees, suppliers and other stakeholders including shareholders. If they are not satisfied with the results, they can always go to the stockmarkets. Given that executive compensation in most corporates is linked to stock price performance, investors' ability to hammer down a company's stock price bestows them with a good control over corporates.

Thanks for your comment

I am not sure regulators know enough or have the desire to educate investors. Its more generic to inform or keep confirming to investors that they have rights and should use them. For example dont moan about Banking remuneration if you dont use your vote at the AGM

There is power in this capital society for the investor but if they not interested in using it than that their own fault. The old saying you can lead the horse to water but cant make it drink suits this scenario

I do however feel that it is in the Corporate Governance area where Companies have a greater responsibility to inform the investor in simple and understanable terms and language what their rights are and what they should do to protect them 

I agree that investors would like corporates to explain things in simple and understandable terms. As to how feasible that is, let me point to this NPR article according to which (1) Jargon is inevitable in contracts, and (2) Contracts would become 2-3X longer by avoiding legalese. Although this article refers specifically to credit card agreements, I don't think it's too far off the ballpark in our current context of investor rights, responsibilities and other elements of corporate governance.   

Than you for this

It sounds like we are on the same wave lengthe