I'm a fan of buybacks, but with stipulations. Example, in the US...

I'm a fan of buybacks, but with stipulations. Example, in the US many shares that were overpriced became involved in buybacks. This enabled management to offload large amounts of their shares and maintain a high share price, Thus, IMO, I would like to see directors, etc, banned from selling during buybacks. This isn't a concern for DDH as directors have been buying above current price.

I prefer companies that maintain sufficient cash that allows only for immediate needs plus contingencies. The rest returned to shareholders via divvies, return of capital or buybacks etc. Companies with too much cash on hand tend to squander more than necessary on unnecessary junkets and research. As an ex-cabbie for over 40 years I have heard many things about cashed up companies wastage. Just one example, a guy who was consulting for a prominent company told me, some years earlier this company asked some advice on how to go about doing something, By the time he got about finding a solution, management had changed and the new manager wanted a different way to solve this problem. He restarted his research, and lo and behold, by the time he got to finding this new way, a new manager had taken over and had to restart again. That went on for several years, involve $Ms and still no final decision. BTW the company was BHP. But I heard many stories of similar waste involving many companies. A good cabbie knows how to appear smart, or ignorant, whichever he deems appropriate, to ask questions. Also how to listen when a couple of guys are discussing issues.

DDH, has made several takeovers and need to digest these before involving itself in more. If a company uses it's money prudently and successfully for their shareholders, it will have little trouble going to the market and raising money, for any new investments.