> It’s so gross that companies can just dilute and create stock out of thin air like this.

To get money from the outside, you either have to take on debt or you have to give someone a share in the business. In this case, the board of directors concluded the latter is better. I don't understand why you think it is gross.

▲

93po 7 days ago | parent [-]

To get a share in the business, you can also just buy stock in the business like everyone else, not increasing the total share count or causing dilution. They chose not to do this because it would have been more expensive due to properly compensating existing shareholders. So it's spiritually just theft.

▲

andsoitis 6 days ago | parent [-]

> To get a share in the business, you can also just buy stock

The business is looking for additional capital. You can only do that by either selling new shares or raising debt.

> in the business like everyone else, not increasing the total share count or causing dilution. They chose not to do this because it would have been more expensive due to properly compensating existing shareholders. So it's spiritually just theft.

Shareholder dilution isn't inherently theft. Specific circumstances, motivations, and terms of issuance have a bearing on whether the dilution is harmful or whether it is necessary for the business.

For instance, it can be harmful if: minority shareholders are oppressed, shares are issued at a deeply discounted price with no legitimate business need or to benefit insiders at the expense of other shareholders, or if the raised capital isn't used effective to grow the company.

Dilution can be beneficial, such as when the raised capital is used for growth, employee compensation via employee stock options, etc.

	▲	93po 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Intel has treasury shares - its own stock that it owns. It had enough to cover this $5B deal. Nvidia could have bought that without screwing over existing shareholders.