Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Dividends -vs- share buybacks: opinions and questions I have

Recs

21

March 14, 2010 – Comments (38)

All, I have a few comments and a few questions on divi's -vs- buybacks...

     Companies can return money directly to shareholders in two basic ways.  The first is a dividend, which is well known.  In paying a dividend the company directly returns cash to shareholders.

     The second is a stock buyback.  There a company takes excess cash and buys back shares on the open market.  This results in a smaller float and, in theory, a higher share price if the market values the company at the same market cap.  Some stocks that are fond of buying back shares include DELL, CSCO, GME, JNJ (also pays a dividend) and more.  Indeed, share buybacks are extremely common these days.  

     So which is better?  In theory a buyback is better because shareholders are not taxed on it, and it should have the same net effect.  Imagine that Checklists Booking Agency and Zebra Ranch (ticker:  CBAZR) is worth a market cap of $1 billion every day (never changes) from now until 2020.  And it pays a 5% dividend each year or it buys back 5% of the float each year on the open market. So we have

constant $1 billion market cap

$50 million of shares bought back each year OR

$50 million of dividends bought back each year

Shares start at $100 each

You start with 1000 shares

After 10 years with the buyback, in theory, the shares would be  $158 and your portfolio would be worth $158,000.  After 10 years of dividend reinvestment, the shares would be $100 (constant market cap and constant float) and your portfolio would be worth $143,000.  The difference is that you pay taxes on the dividends, but you don't pay taxes on the share buybacks.

disclaimer:  in 100% of posts done by checklist34, except if noted in said post, all math is quick and rough to illustrate the point and is never done anally so as to be perfect.  Broad points are generally relevant, specific minute details rarely are, and I'm lazy and hate wasting time.

 

PRACTICE -VS- THEORY AND SPECIAL SITUATIONS

Dividends are income, buybacks are not.  If you need to generate income from a portfolio to live...  then obviously a buyback does nothing for you.  

Dividends are tangible and can't be taken back.  A buyback does not help shareholders if the shares go to zero.   Witness the stock of GM.  Your grandfather, an extremely rich man, put all of his net worth except his house and what he needed to live for the next 50 years into GM in 1962 and the nproceeded to go on a 48 year drunk, he passed away just recently.  He never left any instructions on what to do with the dividends so they just sat in his account, maybe accruing money market interset.  

If GM had spent billions of dollars on buybacks only over that time, he would now have about 2% of his money left, and you'd inherit nothing.  The shares are now worth about 57 cents, someday to be zero presumably.

However, as it was, GM paid dividends.  And a whole hell of alot of them at that.  In fact over those 50 years GM paid out nearly 4x his original investment in dividends DESPITE THEIR HORRID FINANCIAL TROUBLE, DECLINE AS A COMPANY, AND BANKRUPTCY.  So if he put away a million bucks back then, you'd have about 3.8 million today.  If GM had bought back shares, you wouldn't have diddly.

So that raises the most critical point aobut share buybacks:  are you 100,000% sure that the company buying back the shares is going to still be worth something far enough into the future to justify a higher share price at some future date?  

Buybacks are only as valuable as the people handling them.   In a great economy a company mamkes a big profit and announces a monster buyback.  A recession then hits and the sahre price tanks and the company then has no cash left to buy shares back.  In some cases, like GE, they have actually bought shares back at market tops and issued them later with shares down about 50%.  Thats really not good use of shareholder money.  With a dividend we get to decide what/when/where to reinvest it.  Thats worth something.  BECAUSE COMPANIES ARE MORE FLUSH WITH CASH DURING GOOD TIMES, WHICH CAN TEND TO LINE UP WITH BULL MARKET PEAKS, BUYBACKS MAY HAVE A BIT OF A "BUY HIGH, SELL LOW" MOJO, WHICH IS NOT GOOD.

 

Now the questions:

-do any of you have an opinion on share buybacks -vs-dividends?

-does anybody know of historical "buyback info", i.e., some way to look at historical buyback of shares on say the S&P as a % of market cap?  The way we can find historical dividend payout data?  (here is the dividend data)

-does anybody know of a list of companies that buy back regularly and how much?  as in where could I lump together this data on my own?

-does anybody have any data or feeling or opinion on whether the market values companies that buy back shares more generously than it does dividend paying companies?

-are buybacks more common today (with many companies doing it if not outright eschewing dividends altogether 100% in favor of buybacks, dell and csco come to mind) than they were 20-30 years ago?

 

gun to my head, i'd pick dividends over buybacks because A) I kind of need some income and B) I trust my own ability to reinvest over some companies management and C) I have no data on long term effects of buybacks.  

 thanks

38 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On March 14, 2010 at 11:37 PM, checklist34 (99.71) wrote:

here's a little something:

http://www.bowne.com/securitiesconnect/details.asp?storyID=1404

Not long ago, the preferred method of returning excess cash to shareholders was through dividends. Although many companies continue to pay dividends, many more boards these days prefer not to be locked into regularly scheduled payments. Instead, issuers are using excess cash to repurchase their shares on the open market. Recent studies indicate that stock buybacks are rapidly outpacing the issuance of dividends in public companies. In 1980, for example, S&P500 companies repurchased shares with a value equaling just 10% of the amount of their dividends; 21 years later, the value of share repurchases as a percentage of cash returned to shareholders had risen to 51%, while the value of dividends paid was just 32%. Simultaneous with this trend has been the rise of stock options as a significant component of executive compensation, and an increasing concurrence of companies repurchasing shares while their executives sell shares they received through their options. Randy Myers suggests that the buyback program raises a questionable conflict of interest.

 Exactly.  Executives are MOTIVATED TO BUY STOCK BACK WHEN THE SHARE PRICE IS HIGH BECAUSE THIS HELPS THEM GET THEIR OPTIONS IN THE MONEY.  

I think buybacks suck.

But next time somebody freaks out about how low the dividend yield on the S&P is point out this data point (assuming its correct):

in 1980 dividends were 10x greater than buybacks

in 2006 buybacks were 1.5x greater than dividends

So cash returned to shareholders in 1980 was about 5.5% dividends + apparently about 0.5% buybacks, or about 6%.

Cash returned to shareholders in 2006 was  1.8% dividends + ~3% buybacks +, apparently, about 1% of something else or about, wait for it, 6%.  Even eliminating the 1% of apparent something else we have 5%.

The discrepancy in valuation from 2006 to 1980 is not that great when viewed in this light.

 

Report this comment
#2) On March 14, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Tastylunch (29.27) wrote:

Yes I do have an opinion

I prefer dividends. I think it's better for the company in the long run. Dividend/income investors types provide some of the most loyal investors and high quality liquidity around. They help reduce volatility in the shares of a company and allow it some flexibility to make tough decisions.

To be fair Buybacks can be great in bull runs in momo stocks as it helps reduce the flost squeezing the stock ever upward (the CANSLIM crowd prefers them)

However I think companies like e.g. Taser International, Sun microsystems and Travelzoo are hurt by the fact that their shares went parabolic due to low float at some point in their run as opposed to the more orderly sustained rises of your Wal-Marts and Microsofts etc...

When you have a parabolic run, its usually followed by a pretty steep collapse. Most companies share prices never completely recover from massive falls from the data I've seen. ( I wish I still had it)

 I don't mind if a company buys back shares when they are badly underpriced, but all too often that is not how they are handled. Whether that be due to poor timing skills (lots of companies seem to to like to do buybacks after a great run up), inability to convince shareholders to buy low in times of low confidence, or buying high just to be buying... They just don't seem to do it well.

Dividends are easy to manage,easy to execute well and keeps the good big money at home. The hot money crowd is very fickle.

I think it was Mungofitch who demonstrated that roughly 20% of the annual return of stocks indices comes from dividends. Without dividends there is pretty much no meaningful out performance for stocks as a vehicle

So i guess i depends o what you like, big runners or solid money. I prefer solid money for most of the market. market volatility may be good for me as a tarder/investor, but I think it's bad for our companies and overall economy.

Report this comment
#3) On March 15, 2010 at 12:03 AM, starbucks4ever (97.62) wrote:

I am amazed that buybacks are even considered as a viable alternative to dividends.

Report this comment
#4) On March 15, 2010 at 12:03 AM, Tastylunch (29.27) wrote:

-does anybody have any data or feeling or opinion on whether the market values companies that buy back shares more generously than it does dividend paying companies?

Dwot has a player called dwotbuyback of companies that buyback regularly. as you might expect they seem to be more volatile than tghe amrket but move in sync with it.I.e. when the market goes down, they go downmore than market, when it goes up they go up more than the market

I'm sure there is a more comprehensive list somewhere though

-are buybacks more common today (with many companies doing it if not outright eschewing dividends altogether 100% in favor of buybacks, dell and csco come to mind) than they were 20-30 years ago?

I would say so. IBD has pushed lots of companies to do buybacks instead of dividends. IBD has a lot of pull on the insitutional side of things. This thought has spread everywhere

I think Tech companies in general prefer them because they don't want the obligation of a dividend since they like hoarding cash. Buybacks to me seemed most prevalent in the 90's when the amrket was nuts.

Conversely though you also now have specialized dividend vehicles you didn't have thrity years ago (or at least not nearly as many), REITS and MLPs

Report this comment
#5) On March 15, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Tastylunch (29.27) wrote:

and thanks for the Bowne link. conirms what truthisntstupid said as well. I hand't thought that through before but it makes total sense.

Pretty disgusting.

Report this comment
#6) On March 15, 2010 at 12:13 AM, ozzfan1317 (81.31) wrote:

I think buybacks make sense in a smaller company that is trying to retain most of their earnings for future growth and still reward shareholders. However any company with a market cap above 20 billion (Midcap) that doesnt pay a dividend in my opinion should be avoided.

Report this comment
#7) On March 15, 2010 at 12:48 AM, checklist34 (99.71) wrote:

so, management has a motive to "buy high", several actually:

1.  they typically hold just options, not shares so

     a.  they don't get dividends

     b.  the buyback can raise share prices so they can sell the options more profitably

2.  when times are good, more cash is available, and probably share prices are higher, making buybacks tend to happen "high"

3.  selling into the buyback helps prevent insider selling from causing a dip in share prices

4.  management probably aren't good traders

Report this comment
#8) On March 15, 2010 at 12:49 AM, checklist34 (99.71) wrote:

i'm starting to feel the same way, zloj

Report this comment
#9) On March 15, 2010 at 12:54 AM, checklist34 (99.71) wrote:

tasty, i think we're on the same page here, thanks for the feedback.

buybacks probably =~ fail

 

 

Report this comment
#10) On March 15, 2010 at 12:54 AM, checklist34 (99.71) wrote:

here here, ozzfan...

Report this comment
#11) On March 15, 2010 at 1:36 AM, checklist34 (99.71) wrote:

another reason why share buybacks suck ass:

Dividends have their own set of fans, people like me and some of us who like them and consider them a great reason to own a stock.  Widows, orphans, Steve Leuthold as substitutes for bonds in his asset allocation fund.

To some extent, albeit maybe not a huge one, dividends can define valuation.

Valuation is the whole reason buybacks coudl work.  A company trades a ta p/e of 15, if it buys back 50% of its float and still trades at a p/e of 15, stock should double.

Problem:  the market (and this is the potentially interesting comment here) DOES NOT SET VALUATIONS BASED ON EARNINGS PER SHARE OR EARNINGS GROWTH PER SHARE BUT ON ACTUAL COMPANY GROWTH.  As company growth slows, multiples will crash...  witness DELL.  

What was DELL's market cap at its peak?  Its $27B today at about 30% of its peak share price.  I damn near guarantee you it was well north of $100B at itspeak in the bubble...  So they have bought back 20-30% of the shares?

And the PPS is in the toilet, its trading lower in forward p/e than the biggest of the blue chips like VZ or AT&T.  Because the company itself doesn't have a great deal of momentum.

so buy back all you want, but once your company (regardless of how financially sound) stumbles or fades into normal "mature" growth rates you trade at a normal p/e.  

Dividends may provide a better floor under stock price?

This post was composed in 4 segments, each broken up by 15 minutes of web surfing, and may be disorganized and sucky.

Report this comment
#12) On March 15, 2010 at 8:12 AM, PeteysTired (< 20) wrote:

Does a buyback do anything to the overall # of shares?  I thought I remembered from my accounting classes that only retiring shares eliminates them off the books.  With less shares in theory it should drive up the stock price, but if the company does a buyback and doesn't retire the shares then the # of shares remains the same doesn't it? 

If a company retires the shares, then I might favor that scenario over dividends.  I don't hear a lot of news about companies retiring shares.

Report this comment
#13) On March 15, 2010 at 8:21 AM, mhonarvar (< 20) wrote:

dividends give you an actual $ amount you will get back, buybacks dont have any garanteed $ value to shareholder.

Report this comment
#14) On March 15, 2010 at 8:40 AM, lemoneater (81.73) wrote:

@ #12 Good question. I was wondering what the significance was for a company retiring shares. One of my holdings recently announced a plan to retire shares. Sorry, I cannot remember which one.

Report this comment
#15) On March 15, 2010 at 9:39 AM, portefeuille (99.60) wrote:

This results in a smaller float and, in theory, a higher share price if the market values the company at the same market cap.

Actually a buyback can be more or less neutral for a stock.

Let's say the company has stable assets, no debt and no expenses. The stable assets could be a (valid) $100 bill, for example. If the company has 100 shares each should be valued at about $1. So let's say the company wants to raise some money by issuing 100 new shares. The new shares are supposed to be equivalent to the old ones, so the fair price for the stock issuance is $1 per share since after the capital raise the company has assets of $200, still no debt and now 200 shares that are now all "old common shares". Now the company changes its mind and decides that $150 are all the assets it can handle, so now it could pay a dividend of $0.25 per share. The stock price should fall to $0.75 ex-dividend since now the company has $150 in assets and still 200 shares. Or the company could buy back 50 of the shares for $1 per share and eliminate those 50 shares. The share price should stay at $1 as the company now has $150 in assets and 150 share.

So in this case the buyback is simply the "inverse" of the "stock issuance". Both have no effect on the value of the shares.

Report this comment
#16) On March 15, 2010 at 9:39 AM, portefeuille (99.60) wrote:

no debt and no expenses.

and no income, hehe ...

Report this comment
#17) On March 15, 2010 at 9:54 AM, portefeuille (99.60) wrote:

okay, for this to work the company would of course need to find people to buy/sell/hold the stock at $1. well, that example should not be taken too "seriously" ...

Report this comment
#18) On March 15, 2010 at 9:56 AM, portefeuille (99.60) wrote:

150 share.

150 shares.

Report this comment
#19) On March 15, 2010 at 10:15 AM, portefeuille (99.60) wrote:

an interesting way of "doing it".

---------- 

Cardiome Pharma Corp. Announces Commencement of US$27.5 Million Tender Offer

Vancouver, Canada, September 1, 2009 — Cardiome Pharma Corp. (NASDAQ: CRME / TSX: COM) (“Cardiome” or the “Company”) announced that it has mailed an offer to purchase and issuer bid circular (the “Offer to Purchase and Circular”) to its shareholders today in connection with its previously announced tender offer to purchase for cancellation up to 6,470,588 of its common shares for an aggregate purchase price of up to US$27.5 million. The Offer to Purchase and Circular is being filed with the securities regulatory authorities in the United States and Canada.

The tender offer will be conducted as a modified “Dutch auction”, which will enable shareholders to select a price between US$4.25 per share and US$5.10 per share at which they are willing to tender their common shares to the offer. The purchase price will be the lowest price per share between US$4.25 and US$5.10 that enables Cardiome to purchase US$27.5 million of common shares. All common shares purchased under the offer will be purchased at the same price. Cardiome’s directors and officers will not tender any of their common shares to the offer. The offer to purchase shares will expire on October 6, 2009 at 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time), unless withdrawn or extended.

...

As noted above, the modified “Dutch auction” procedures permit shareholders to select a price between US$4.25 per share and US$5.10 per share at which they are willing to sell their common shares to the Company. The purchase price, which will be the lowest price per share between US$4.25 and US$5.10 that enables Cardiome to purchase US$27.5 million of common shares, will be calculated immediately after the offer expires. All common shares purchased under the offer will be purchased at the same price, even if they were tendered at a price per share which is less than the purchase price. The Company will not purchase any common shares that are tendered to the offer at a price per share which is greater than the purchase price. If the number of common shares tendered to the offer at or below the purchase Price would result in an aggregate purchase price of more than US$27.5 million, the common shares tendered to the offer will be subject to pro-ration as described in the Offer to Purchase and Circular.

If the offer is fully subscribed at a purchase price of US$4.25 per share, Cardiome will purchase 6,470,588 common shares under the offer (representing approximately 10.1% of the issued and outstanding common shares as of the date hereof). If the offer is fully subscribed at a purchase price of US$5.10 per share, Cardiome will purchase 5,392,157 common shares under the offer (representing approximately 8.4% of the issued and outstanding common shares as of the date hereof).

...

----------

 

----------

Cardiome Pharma Corp. Announces Final Results of Tender Offer

Vancouver, Canada, October 16, 2009 – Cardiome Pharma Corp. (NASDAQ: CRME / TSX: COM) (“Cardiome” or the “Company”) announced the final results of its modified “Dutch Auction” tender offer to purchase for cancellation up to US$27.5 million of its common shares (the “Offer”), which expired at 5:00 p.m. (Eastern time) on October 13, 2009. Cardiome has accepted 6,470,588 of its common shares for purchase and cancellation at a purchase price of US$4.25 per share (the “Purchase Price”), for an aggregate purchase price of US$27.5 million. The purchased shares represent approximately 9.7% of the outstanding common shares of the Company as of October 13, 2009. Following the cancellation of the common shares purchased under the Offer, 60,163,885 common shares of the Company will remain issued and outstanding.

Based on the final report of the Depository, 7,209,211 common shares were properly tendered to the Offer at or below the Purchase Price. Subject to certain limited exceptions described in the offer to purchase and issuer bid circular for the Offer filed with securities regulatory authorities in Canada and the United States on September 1, 2009, shareholders who tendered their common shares to the Offer at a price equal to or less than the Purchase Price will have approximately 90% of their deposited common shares purchased by the Company. Payment for all common shares accepted for purchase under the Offer will be carried out promptly by the Depository. Because the paid up capital per common share exceeds the Purchase Price, shareholders will not be deemed to receive a dividend upon payment for their common shares.

Common shares tendered to the Offer but not purchased, including common shares deposited at prices greater than the Purchase Price and common shares not purchased because of pro-ration or because the tendering shareholder’s minimum conditional tender conditions were not met, will be returned to shareholders as promptly as possible.

...

----------

 



enlarge

Report this comment
#20) On March 15, 2010 at 1:37 PM, WillSurfForFood (81.67) wrote:

This has been a great discussion. I agree with most people that dividends are better than buybacks for many of the reasons already posted. The only thing I would add is I think buybacks are just fine for companies that are already committed to paying a dividend such as MCD. They have a payout ratio of 50% and a long history of increasing the dividend, so using some of the other 50% of earnings for buybacks is not a bad idea. They can only grow so fast at this point and reducing the float should allow them to increase the dividend more in the future.

 

Report this comment
#21) On March 15, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Tastylunch (29.27) wrote:

portefeuille

I think CRME is the exception as opposed to the rule. I did like how they used their buybacks

In practice I find buybacks to be more used like the way National City (formerly NCC) did it in 2006/2007 where they bought near the top.

Buybacks when used properly are fine and in many case even beneficial, but the problem is don't often seem to be.

Report this comment
#22) On March 15, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Griffin416 (99.98) wrote:

I love dividends. As stated above, the people who run the buybacks are not good traders.

There is something about dividends that give me the warm and fuzzy feeling. I am a guy, like most, got burned in 2000, but became a much better investor because of it. When a company pays a dividend and especially if it is a dividend aristocrat, the chances of them having phony books is much smaller. When they are paying you...the money is real.

There was a strategy I used last year (from Cramer) that worked very well. Buy the accidentially high yielding stocks and sold them when they went under 3% yield again.

For fundamentally sound companies (depending on how you view this), a strategy I like is If the S&P is yielding 2%, buy the cheap stocks in the S&P that yield 3%-4% and sell the ones that have 1%. This should help figure out value if things get really whacky.

With buybacks, none of these strategies could be used and fraud is a much higher item on my list to worry about.

Report this comment
#23) On March 15, 2010 at 4:30 PM, mikecart1 (98.88) wrote:

Dividends are far superior to buybacks.  DRIPS are even better.  Trust me.

Report this comment
#24) On March 15, 2010 at 6:20 PM, checklist34 (99.71) wrote:

Porte, that was a good post, thanks. Taken seriously or not, nice post.

Petey, I had assumed that the shares would be destroyed after a buyback...

mhon, agreed

mikecart1:  that is 100% what I think has been reasonably concluded from this thread...

 

Report this comment
#25) On March 15, 2010 at 6:25 PM, checklist34 (99.71) wrote:

Griffin...  good point.  nobody borrows money to pay dividends, companies DO borrow money at times to buy back shares (wasn't autozone into this at one point?).  Management tends to benefit far elss from dividends than higher share prices and so tends to prefer the old buyback.

buybacks < dividends, i am now convinced

Report this comment
#26) On March 15, 2010 at 6:28 PM, checklist34 (99.71) wrote:

porte, tasty:

1.  thats a fantastic way of going about it by crme

2.  on reason to believe the rise in pps was due to the buyback, again, one can never prove this...

Report this comment
#27) On March 15, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Tastylunch (29.27) wrote:

I should disclose I hold shares in CRME

cost basis around ~4.50

Report this comment
#28) On March 15, 2010 at 7:55 PM, truthisntstupid (85.31) wrote:

Hopefully more and more people will really think this through as you have, checklist.  Very good post!   In many ways, better than mine from Dec 26.  If more people thoroughly examine this, maybe more companies will choose to either pay dividends or at least retire the stock they repurchase.

Report this comment
#29) On March 15, 2010 at 8:25 PM, dbjella (< 20) wrote:

 checklist34 

How do you know shares are retired? 

Report this comment
#30) On March 15, 2010 at 10:29 PM, walt373 (99.80) wrote:

Below is my response to another post about buybacks. And you might find this useful - there is an ETF that tracks stocks with high buybacks, PKW.

----

I view stock buybacks as the equivalent of a reinvested dividend. Instead of the company paying you a dividend which you then use to buy more of its stock, the company buys the stock for you. Since you technically own the company, which owns the stock, either way you get more of the stock. So I view buybacks positively when I would use a dividend to purchase more shares anyways, since it's more tax-efficient, and negatively when I see shares as fully-priced.

I think lumping the issue of management compensation with the share buyback issue doesn't really make a lot of sense. It's quite easy to find out how much of each the company is doing, so the argument that share repurchases are "covering up" excessive compensation is weak in my opinion. If the shares are undervalued, then buying back stock is wise. If the management gets paid too much, then that's unfair for shareholders. The two often happen together, but you can have one without the other, so they should be considered independently.

One interesting thing that stock buybacks do, that does not get talked about as much as it should, is that it increases leverage for the company. When the company uses cash to buy back stock, the company's equity decreases, while liabilities stay the same. So it's important to also look at whether keeping that cash on hand would be wiser because you might need it for a rainy day, and not just whether the shares are cheap.

Another effect a stock buyback has is that it basically increases the percentage that a stock has in your portfolio, same as a dividend repurchase plan would, as compared to a normal dividend. For example, say you have two stocks that are exactly the same except one pays a dividend (stock A) and the other buys back stock with the same amount of money (stock B). When you receive dividends, you use that cash to buy other stocks, which lowers the % of your portfolio that stock A makes up. But since stock B will have provided no dividends, it would make up a larger % of your portfolio than if you had stock A instead. The effect will be very small at first, but if you plan to hold a stock over a long time, this will have a huge effect on your allocation strategy. Because of this, a stock that does buybacks should take up a smaller percentage of your portfolio than it would if it paid a dividend.

 

Report this comment
#31) On March 16, 2010 at 1:59 AM, checklist34 (99.71) wrote:

truthinstpuid, I missed your post from december...  too bad, I've been curious about this topic for a long time.  Wish i had seen it!

Report this comment
#32) On March 16, 2010 at 2:00 AM, checklist34 (99.71) wrote:

dbjella, I don't, i had just assumed...  apparently they are not always retired.

Report this comment
#33) On March 16, 2010 at 2:06 AM, checklist34 (99.71) wrote:

walt, good input...  interesting ETF.  Mild outperformance over the last 2-3 years since its inception.

the problem that I have with the concept of buybacks is only very slightly their use to enrich management, and more the inability of management to "buy low".  DELL bought back $7 bil in the high 30's...  how did that turn out for shareholders, not to good.

I just think that a list of negatives exist here to offset the tax advantage relative to dividends.

Witness also some studies that show that dividend paying stocks have higher earnings growth than non divi paying stocks (talk about counterintuitive):

http://advisorperspectives.com/commentaries/thornburg_022210.php Report this comment
#34) On March 16, 2010 at 10:38 AM, walt373 (99.80) wrote:

Yea... as much as I like buybacks, there is no doubt in my mind that dividends are superior to buybacks for most stocks. But not because there's anything inherently wrong with buybacks. It's an execution problem. If they backfire, usually the reason is the same reason that acquisitions do as well - management overpays.

Report this comment
#35) On March 16, 2010 at 12:00 PM, truthisntstupid (85.31) wrote:

Checklist

This was my post from Dec.  Being the day after Xmas, it probably wasn't a good time to post anything and think many people would see it.  You were one of the few who did.  You just forgot about it.

http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/ViewPost.aspx?bpid=317600&t=01007007794901831104

Report this comment
#36) On March 16, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Tastylunch (29.27) wrote:

you cnan check to see how many shares are outstanding by viewing a company's SEC filings.

Report this comment
#37) On March 17, 2010 at 5:58 PM, truthisntstupid (85.31) wrote:

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/02/041702.asp

Report this comment
#38) On March 17, 2010 at 9:07 PM, truthisntstupid (85.31) wrote:

The link above clearly explains the connections that some continue to deny.  Education is the answer.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement