Dividend Policy- Don't Rock the Boat

Dividend wealth is an interesting topic for conversation when it comes to rewarding shareholder investment.  My original thoughts on dividends were that such insignificant figures would make little difference regarding fluctuations.  This was before I was made to realise the scale of investment made in companies from insurance and pension funds.  It’s a crazy concept that the future of our retirement is massively dependent on the dividend policy of these huge companies.

There are arguments, when considering NPV that would recommend company profits would be better investing in ventures with a positive rating.  Such ventures would be claimed to raise the value of a company, thus boosting shareholder wealth.  Only residual cash left from profitable ventures would be repaid as dividends using this concept.

Modigliani & Miller echo such sentiments, claiming that dividend policy has no effect on company value.

In reality however, it can rarely be seen that dividend policy has no effect on company value.  Of course, in a ideal world where humans are rational, the understanding that dividends may be low due to a high level of invest activity which would boost their wealth.

Unfortunately, humans are very irrational and such fluctuations would likely lead to a mass exodus.  If several shareholder looked to sell their shares at the same time, the share price would fall.  Although M&M’s idea is theoretically true, in the real world dividends play a huge role.

Looking at the BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the announcement that BP would be halving their dividend payment resulted in panic from UK pension funds, fearing such a decrease could cost the UK millions in the long run.  Although not the only factor, BP’s share price suffered badly as a result of this announcement.

It can therefore be seen that shareholders, being the irrational, over-emotional being that they are crave stability.  A constant, un-fluctuating dividend yield is met favourably, thus companies have reacted to this by attempting to maintain a steady dividend payout, regardless of good or poor performance. 

Although investors may look on such a decision favourably, I would consider it a bit of a shame that shareholders are so insistent at focussing on their short term gains, that they cannot see the bigger picture- that maybe a company’s surplus cash could be put to better use, which would eventually lead to an increase in their own wealth.  To ask shareholder to think long term is quite possibly too much of a revolutionary step I fear. 

The Global Financial Crisis- A warning of things to come?

The start of my university life back in September 2007 coincided almost perfectly with the emergence of the dreaded credit crunch.  Walking down Northumberland Street to see countless people queuing outside of Northern Rock provided me with a great source of entertainment.  I saw it as a massive overreaction made by people that consider the scaremongering of the media to be gospel truth.  To an extent, I was correct; government policy protected the first £75,000 in a person’s bank account.  To actually learn the extent of the problems the economy faced on a global scale is quite terrifying, and utterly infuriating.

The level of confidence in the marketplace before the financial crisis was incredible.  The house market was booming, credit was cheap, and everything was rosy.  Collateralised debt obligations were a big source of this increased liquidity in the market, which promised a source of cash depending on the rating assigned by the credit rating agencies.  The rate of return in the AAA rated assets were so high, even banks were utilising these options.

Incredibly, these banks that were supplying long term mortgages were investing in assets that depended on the success of the mortgages they were issuing.  Confidence was so high in these assets, banks built up assets around these CDOs.  The problem arose when the house market began to decline, which saw the increase on defaults on mortgage payments.  All of a sudden, these ‘safe’ assets became far less secure. 

The cash shortages created a chain reaction that went on to cripple the banking sector, leading to panic amongst the public that their hard earned saving were at serious risk.  Suddenly cash became a rare commodity and successful businesses were finding it increasingly difficult to fund their operations as a result of this shortage.  The decision made by the UK government to offer a bailout option to the banks illustrates how severe the situation became, with the bailout dwarfing the annual cost of running the NHS.

The use of the word ‘confidence’ in this blog to describe the mood towards the marketplace is perhaps a poor choice.  Confidence implies a belief in the ability to succeed, yet the banks ability to succeed was so heavily hinged on the housing market and CDO’s, that the word ‘arrogance’ seems more appropriate.  The importance of planning, spreading risk and assuring cash is always available has been emphasised at every aspect of my business education.  How is it that bankers were so blind to this? 

The arrogance in assuming the bubble could never burst, that market value will continue to increase is beyond belief.  To not consider the possibility of a problem emerging in the future as a result of ‘putting all your eggs in one basket’ is madness.  To find a source of this particular financial crisis and focus on avoiding that particular mistake again is to miss to the point in my opinion however.

Maybe there will be greater regulation in future regarding the assumed security of investment assets, but in 10 years time, house prices will still demand staggering mortgages, banks will still take out loans to fund these mortgages and the world will run on the assumption that credit will be available to them to get by.

It is frustrating to think that we, the taxpayer are the victims in this financial crisis and I sincerely doubt we will ever get so much as a ‘thank you’ from Northern Rock or RBS.  It is scary to think that we appear to have applied a band aid to a broken leg in making no drastic changes to the regulations surrounding business.  Maybe we will learn from our mistakes and prosper from a more restrained credit system.  I worry however that we will continue to make the same fundamental mistakes in future.  Maybe the next time we see a credit crunch, the ramifications could be far more serious than public spending cuts and increases in tax.

Mergers and Acquisitions: Shareholders Worst Nightmare?

Mergers and acquisitions are an interesting concept when linked to shareholder wealth.  With much of the emphasis on businesses based around maximising the wealth of shareholders, you have to ask how exactly mergers and acquisitions achieve this for the bidding company.  Looking at Jensen and Ruback’s study, rarely do you observe any significant gain for the bidding shareholder’s company.  If the bid fails, it can be expected that both sets of shareholders will see a loss.

Looking at the recent case of JD looking to takeover JJB, the initial announcement from JD stating their intentions was met with JJB’s shares rising over 30%, whereas JD’s shares rose a modest 1.5%.  Evidently, JJB’s shareholders saw this as a far more exciting prospect than that of JD’s. 

 As a shareholder, Warren Buffet seems to meet mergers and acquisitions with a degree of hostility, citing the loss of wealth on the acquiring shareholders to be a key reason.  It seems JD’s shareholders have a similar opinion.  Why would they wish for their company to shell out for a target company’s shares at a massive premium rate? 

Mergers and acquisitions seem to display an area of business where the objectives of shareholders and management differ.  Some of the pro-M&A arguments revolve around the cliché lines of ‘increased efficiencies’ and ‘synergy benefits’, but looking into quotes from John Kay, there seem to be a degree of egoism from management.  “The thrill of the chase” is an irresponsible mentality from managers tasked with the duty of maximising the wealth of the shareholders.  With Buffet’s analogy of ‘frogs to princes’, the cynicism shareholders can hold towards M&A’s to be evident.

Of course there can be genuine advantages involved for businesses if made correctly.  For companies looking to expand their operations to other countries, investing in an already established framework can save a considerable amount of time and money that starting from scratch.  Wallmart’s takeover of Asda is a great example of how to expand to other countries, and with Tesco’s faltering attempting to start from scratch in America; it shows that M&A’s are not always a bad thing.

Coopers and Lybrand saw the significant causes of merger failure to be based around the differing cultures of organisations- with possible hostility being created between the two companies, and a lack of planning post-acquisition.  Astonishing to think that some companies can be so blasé when it comes to assuming the chase is the difficult part.  A lack of planning causing failure is inexcusable and egotistical.

With it coming to light just a few days ago that JD have pulled out of the JJB takeover, and JJB quoted as saying that JD’s bid plan “lacked certainty”, perhaps the takeover would have been met with the exact problems that have been observed in the past.  Maybe JD have dodged a bullet here, and looking at their share price rising by 5.3% compared to JJB’s fall of 10% after this announcement, it looks like JD’s shareholders are breathing a sigh of relief that they won’t have to be ‘kissing any frogs’ any time soon.

Shareholder Wealth: As Value Adding as it Seems?

Creating shareholder wealth is seen almost as a holy grail for business to achieve.  If you can maximise the wealth of your shareholders, you are attaining one of, if not THE most important strategies of the business.  It can be difficult to argue against.  Albeit over two centuries ago, Smith’s idea of the ‘invisible hand’ guiding the marketplace in such a way that efficiencies are rewarded with investment can still be seen as relevant in modern times.  This success can then be seen to benefit the society as a whole.

Just look at BP- before the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, it was estimated that for every £8 paid into UK pension funds, £1 can be attributed to BP.  A perfect example of looking after the shareholders and also creating a positive outlook for millions in the UK, surely?

Looking at the picture after the oil spill however and we see a potential problem with focussing too much on shareholders.  BP halved their dividend paid from the figure before the disaster.  This will have a significant impact on both shareholders, and in extension, almost every member of the UK public that holds a pension.   In non-monetary terms, the environmental impact of the coastline has devastated livelihoods and sea life, and killed 11 people.

Is it too harsh to hold BP so culpable for this?  It could be chalked down to misfortune, maybe it was completely unavoidable.  Looking at BP’s track record; namely the Texas City disaster, the history of budget cuts forcing cutbacks on safety and training cannot, and should not be ignored.  These budget cuts will have undoubtedly resulted in improved profit margins and will most likely have had a positive impact on the shareholder, and yet now BP are in a situation where a relentless pursuance of maximising shareholder wealth has come back to bite shareholders where it hurts the most- their wallets.  With an estimated £40bn loss for shareholders in dividends over the next 10 years, every shareholder and almost every UK citizen with a pension will see a huge loss. Maximising shareholder wealth?  Perhaps not...

The use of performance indicators as tools to measure shareholder wealth can also be brought into question.  Domino’s Pizza are considered to be one of the best performers on the stock exchange since the economic downturn.  This can be seen by an ever improving EPS figure.  Are these the be all and end all indicators to highlight good business performance though?

Writer and producer of The Wire, David Simon has an interesting take the use of statistics when reporting, “as soon as you invent that statistical category, 50 people in that institution will be at work trying to figure out a way to make it look as if progress is actually occurring when actually no progress is”.  A perfect example of this in the real world is the use of a share buyback shame- something Domino’s and several other FTSE companies frequently take part in.  By spending surplus cash to buy shares and take them out of circulation, businesses are able to artificially increase the earnings of each individual share without actually improving the share price.

The emphasis of improving shareholder wealth is stressed to managers so much that they are put under immense pressure to meet these figures.  When it comes to self preservation, why wouldn’t management do anything they could to make the figures appear more attractive than they actually are?

Should shareholder wealth be held in such high regard even with the clear and obvious flaws?  Maybe not, but with the power shareholders wield, nothing is going to change any time soon.