Mar
1
On Why Dividends Are Not Optimum, from Bill Rafter
March 1, 2009 |
1. Tax savings to the shareholder. The shareholder receiving those dividends must pay taxes on them at a fairly high rate, and in that tax year. If alternatively the corp uses that cash to repurchase its own shares on the open market or otherwise, the overhanging supply of shares decreases resulting in a higher price for all shares. Thus the shareholder experiences a capital gain, which historically has been taxed at a lower rate. Thus his after-tax return increases. And he can choose the tax year. Taxes deferred are taxes denied.
2. The shareholder receives the dividend at a time not determined by himself, and the odds are that it is not the most desirable time for him to receive that payment. If the shareholder wants some cash, he can sell some shares when it is convenient and/or necessary for him to do so. If you want some annoying experience with dividends, buy some HOLDERS (an early/anachronistic version of ETFs). You will get dividend announcements several times a week and your accountant will be delighted with all of the work you have given him.
3. (Opinion) Corps that have cash available to pay dividends are not efficient investors of the capital entrusted to them. By giving the shareholder a dividend they are saying effectively, "we do not have any good investment ideas; take the money because you probably can do better." This is not to suggest that all corps should be acquirers of other companies, but they could put some money in R&D to either enlarge share or reduce expenses in the future. And R&D expenses are tax deductible.
4. (Opinion) The payment of dividends is a public relations game to get investors to hold the stock for long periods. The process lulls investors into not reevaluating their investment options as regularly or often as they should, which is not in the shareholder's best interest. (N.B. That opinion is different from what the "buy and ignore" crowd will tell you.)
Thank YOU for your service to our country.
Stefan Jovanovich comments:
I think the point about the taxation of dividends belongs to an earlier time. The taxable portfolios of individual investors (as opposed to IRAs, SIMPLE IRAs, 401(k)s, etc.) are not a significant part of the overall market. Most of the shares owned are in the hands of tax-exempt institutions. Most of the taxable investors are corporations; because of the dividends received exclusion their effective tax-rate on payouts from other corporations is - at most - 15%. I would hardly want to quarrel with Bill's maths, but it could be argued that the advantage of having a cash payout diminished a 15% by tax could be a better return than allowing corporate management to hold on to the cash and then use it to speculate in their own company's securities. There are very few Henry Singletons.
George Parkanyi adds:
The dividends-are-bad argument misses the point that dividends are not always static, and when companies keep increasing them regularly, after a while you can be earning a very high yield on your original investment in addition to the capital appreciation. Companies can also squander money, and perhaps paying a dividend is a better choice than overpaying for some acquisition that blows up. Dividends can also be good indicators of value where your primary objective is capital appreciation. Look around you now.
I also would be careful using generalizations like "hope for the buy and hold crowd", implying they are a bunch of bovine followers. A lot of people have gotten rich by holding on to companies that have grown and dramatically appreciated in value. In addition to the appreciation, there are tax-deferral and transaction cost avoidance benefits. In fact, it takes a LOT of discipline to be that patient, especially if you follow the markets regularly.
As for dividend-paying stocks, they're just another useful tool - not for everyone, but for many - in the arsenal of investment vehicles available to traders and investors. Personally I think that quality companies paying dividends are going to rocket off the bottom first when things turn around because of the yield support and recognition of value, and many of us will be lamenting "How did I miss _________ at 6%?"
Phil McDonnell replies:
Dividends can be an important part of returns. Most studies of long term stock market returns show that re-investment of dividends accounts for about half of the long term return. So in the long term they are very important.
In the short term they may be less important. If a stock pays a dividend of $.50 then it will probably drop and average of $.50 on the day it goes ex-dividend. So there would seem to be no apparent gain. But if the dividends are reinvested in the stock the investor is buying the stock a little bit cheaper after the ex-dividend event.
Added to this are the benefits of dollar cost averaging. Specifically when the stock is generally at a low price more shares are purchased with the dividend. When the stock is high fewer shares are purchased with that same dividend. Over time this leads to an average price per share that is below the average price of the stock during the same period.
In looking at yields and total returns it is important to look at how the reporting institution does its calculation. You would think that this is not important and that people like S&P report things on a consistent basis. A good case in point is that the S&P index is a cap weighted index. Big cap stocks like IBM, GE and XOM get far more weight than their smaller brethren. But when S&P reports the earnings for the index, bizarrely, they do not use cap weighting. The earnings are equal weighted. Thus an earnings to index level comparison for the S&P is completely meaningless. An example is that S&P calculates the equal weighted reported earnings as negative for the first time in history. But if they were cap weighted the earnings would be positive. If the operating earnings were reported on a cap weighted basis they would be 80% higher than the equal weighted earnings that S&P actually reports.
Dr. McDonnell is the author of Optimal Portfolio Modeling, Wiley, 2008
Comments
Archives
- January 2026
- December 2025
- November 2025
- October 2025
- September 2025
- August 2025
- July 2025
- June 2025
- May 2025
- April 2025
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- Older Archives
Resources & Links
- The Letters Prize
- Pre-2007 Victor Niederhoffer Posts
- Vic’s NYC Junto
- Reading List
- Programming in 60 Seconds
- The Objectivist Center
- Foundation for Economic Education
- Tigerchess
- Dick Sears' G.T. Index
- Pre-2007 Daily Speculations
- Laurel & Vics' Worldly Investor Articles