Why share buybacks are nothing like dividends

By Phil Oakley Feb 17, 2012

1

Share with
friends:

Comments (8) Print this article

When big companies buy back their own shares, it’s often pitched as a ‘return of cash to shareholders’, not unlike a dividend.

But don’t let them pull the wool over your eyes. Buybacks are nothing like dividends, and in general, they’re far better for managers and big institutions than they are for small shareholders.

Here’s why share buybacks are popular

Let’s says that Andy, chief executive of ice cream giant Andy’s Ices, gets a phone call from his stockbroker.

“Hey Andy,” says the stockbroker, “your business is doing fine at the moment but we really need to get the share price moving up a bit.

“I’ve been thinking. If you use some of that cash you’ve been sitting on and buy back 10% of your shares, then there’ll be fewer shares around. That’ll boost earnings per share (EPS). The market will love it.”

Andy thinks for a while. As the company’s biggest shareholder, he likes the prospect of a higher share price but that’s not the only attraction. As chief executive, Andy’s bonus is also linked to growth in the company’s EPS. So if he can push up EPS with a buyback, then he’ll get a bigger bonus.

He agrees that it’s a good idea and tells the broker to start buying shares. The delighted broker puts the phone down and heads off to the wine bar, dreaming of all the commissions his firm will get from the share buyback.

The City and the media greet the news of the buyback with great fanfare. But is it a good deal for investors? Or just for Andy and his broker?

EPS growth and shareholder value are not the same

Let’s get one thing clear here. A buyback can be good news for shareholders. But – and this is the key issue - this is only true if the company buys the shares for less than they are worth. In other words, companies need to consider value for money, just as with any investment, even when buying their own shares.

Here’s an example of why this matters. Let’s take a look at Andy’s Ices.

Andy's IcesNow£11 buyback£8 buyback£14 buyback
Operating profit 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Interest 20 0 0 0
Profit before tax 1,020 1,000 1,000 1,000
Tax at 30% -306 -300 -300 -300
Net profit 714 700 700 700
Shares in issue 1,000 909.09 875.00 928.57
Earnings per share 71.4 77.0 80.0 75.4
Cash 1,000 0 0 0
Shares bought back 90.91 125.00 71.43
Price bought back 1,100 800 1,400
Value of operations 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Cash/Debt 1,000 0 0 0
Value of equity 11,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Shares 1,000 909.1 875.0 928.6
Value per share (p) 1,100 1,100 1,143 1,077
P/e ratio 15.41 14.29 14.29 14.29

Andy’s Ices is a good business. It makes £1bn in annual operating profit and currently has £1bn in cash on its balance sheet. It has no debt.

Based on how much future cash can be taken out of this business, the fair value (or intrinsic value) of its operations is £10bn (I’ve used a discounted cash flow valuation here).

Adding £1bn of cash gives us an equity value of £11bn or £11 per share. This equates to a p/e ratio of 15.4 times. (Note, the value of the business determines the p/e ratio, not the other way round.)

Now look at what happens when the company uses its £1bn of cash to buy back its own shares.

You can see from the table that the price paid is all-important. All three scenarios enhance EPS. But only one – buying shares for less than their fair value - makes shareholders richer.

More to the point, while buying cheap shares makes sense, shareholders can choose whether or not to do this themselves by reinvesting their dividends. They don’t need the company to make the choice for them.

Sign up for a 3-week FREE trial of MoneyWeek
and get the following free as well

"The only financial publication I could not be without."
John Lang, Director, Tower Hill Associates Ltd

 

But what about tax?

Buybacks are seen as a tax efficient way of giving cash to shareholders. The cash is not subject to income tax as is the case with dividends. But this argument is really only relevant to higher-rate taxpayers. It is not an issue for shares held in pension plans or Individual Savings Accounts (Isas).

Some corporate financiers argue that buying back shares with increased borrowings is a good strategy. Interest payments on debt are a tax-deductible expense. Having more debt can therefore lower a company’s tax bill and increase its value.

However, we’d disagree on this score too. As debt holders get paid before shareholders, increasing the amount of debt held makes the equity more risky. This offsets any value from saving tax.

The fact is (as the example above shows) that the value of a business’s operations does not change when its financing changes. But the value of equity can, and not always in a positive way.

Forget buybacks - special dividends are much better

Dividends are tangible cash returns to shareholders. Once paid, they cannot be taken away. Share buybacks are not. Indeed, if managers use share buybacks to boost EPS and so earn bonuses they’d have otherwise missed, they are effectively using shareholders’ money to enrich themselves.

In short, if a company is sitting on too much money and it can’t think of anything better to do with it, we’d much rather see it paid out in special dividends, than used to ramp up EPS.

Comments (8)

Published in Stock markets | More articles by Phil Oakley

Share with
friends:

Related articles

Comments

Leave a comment

  • 1. Jeff

    (17 February 2012, 09:07PM)  Complain about this comment

    Once I have used my annual ISA allowance, the next objective is to use the annual capital gains tax allowance.
    For that portion of my portfolio, companies that engage in share buy backs rather than paying dividends would be very useful.

  • 2. norwegiandave

    (20 February 2012, 11:22AM)  Complain about this comment

    "However, we’d disagree on this score too. As debt holders get paid before shareholders, increasing the amount of debt held makes the equity more risky. This offsets any value from saving tax"

    This is lazy. It's the tax saving that is in fact the reason why debt is good and offsets part of the increased equity risk. Lazy becuase i think the author already knows this.

  • 3. Grandad

    (20 February 2012, 11:29AM)  Complain about this comment

    A well reasoned article and so true. Share buy backs hardly ever create value for shareholders in the long run, and only ever when a soundly run company is selling at below replacement value. At all other times an increased or special dividend (or both) will have a far more powerful effect on share price. Forget financial engineering and stick to basic principles.

  • 4. Another grandad

    (20 February 2012, 11:44AM)  Complain about this comment

    I agree with my fellow grandad. I have long felt that share buy-backs are overrated. BP has spent billions over the years on them with no significant effect on share price. Share prices are in any event driven in large measure by factors beyond the control of individual companies. Far better to reward shareholders with a tangible increased dividend - that gives a certain result by contrast with share buy-backs where the result is far from certain.

  • 5. Phil

    (20 February 2012, 12:13PM)  Complain about this comment

    norwegiandave

    I see where you are coming from.

    My argument is not lazy. It is based on the Net Operating income approach to capital structure which makes the same argument (basically operating profits determine value not financing). I understand the argument that offsetting interest payments against tax favours debt over equity. I just don't agree with it.

    The economic downturn has exposed many companies with leverage. Many of them no longer care about saving tax and are more concerned with staying afloat. I believe that investors should focus as much on risk as on return and that companies with low debts are a good way to go.

    My view that debt does not increase company value may fly in the face of conventional wisdom, but it is not a lazy view.

  • 6. clive chafer

    (20 February 2012, 01:44PM)  Complain about this comment

    I agree with Phil. The taking on of debt for spurious tax reasons often leads to problems: the great sale and leaseback of assets was touted as a clever form of leverage, for example, which has actually sent companies to the wall in many cases (or close to it in others) now that harder times have arrived.

    The straightforward payment of a special dividend is the obvious sensible way to deal with excess company funds. It might be a bit less good for higher rate tax payers but, if you are in that bracket, one would think it less of an issue anyway.

    Keep it simple; it is usually the best system!

  • 7. Mark A

    (20 February 2012, 03:26PM)  Complain about this comment

    £11 buyback £8 buyback £14 buyback
    should these read 8,11 and 14?

  • 8. Doug

    (20 February 2012, 04:56PM)  Complain about this comment

    Buybacks carried out consistently over longer periods can create a decent pay off for the remaining shareholders. If continued until the company has bought back 1/2 of its outstanding shares, the same amount of earnings will then be able to finance a dividend per share of twice the original amount. One company I own has a very low P/E R (below 4), a very high dividend (above 10%), and a reasonable buy back program. I wish I could find more like this one.

Leave a comment

This will be the name displayed with your comment.

This helps us verify comments are genuine. It will not be displayed anywhere on the site and is stored confidentially.

Please keep your comment within 1,000 characters and relevant to the main topic. We encourage healthy debate, but we don't allow insults or bad language. Anything off topic or unpleasant, we'll remove. Enjoy the conversation! Thank you.

captcha To prevent spam-related comments please enter the characters shown in the 'Captcha' box to the left.

By leaving a comment you accept our terms and conditions.


FREE - MoneyWeek's daily investment emailJohn Stepek

Our free daily email, Money Morning, is an informative and enjoyable analysis of what's going on in the markets. Written by our Editor, John Stepek, and guest contributors.
Sign up FREE to Money Morning here.

>